PCHiway wrote:Flag burners, those creepy Baptists at funerals, KKK marchers... man... I'd love to muzzle me some of them... but I won't. I'm not threatened by those marginalized freaks and I won't trade away any of my essential liberties for the comfort and fuzziness I'd feel shoving a rolled sock down their gullets.

Ah...that's the difference isn't it? Palin scares you and must therefore be silenced. Believe me...you can relax. She's unelectable. She was before this whole fiasco. But...shouldn't she still be censured for her perceived lack of civility?

I don't remember anyone arguing what she's saying should be illegal, it was just questioned wether the specific way was necessary to convey her point.
A serious open debate about the issue of public discourse however is useless anyways, due to the intellectual midgetry of many of the involved politicans and media people. Personally i prefer politicans who don't call their oponentns nazis, facists, communists, traitors but that's just me.

They seem to breed the tough in Arizona, i read she can already stand with assistance and has been sent to some rehab center in Houston. Hope she recovers fully.

GMTom wrote:I don't really care how many geography degrees you hold, you simply can't tell me this is not used,...

Can't and didn't. Straw man. Your imagination. Something you can successfully debate against in a hostile black/white manner.

X, you are usually better than this...
You clearly stated, in a very sarcastic manner

I stand humbled, with my Geography degree and lifelong interest in cartography, by the advertising graphics person who works for Town Shopper Coupons in rural Pennsylvania. I retract my entire line of criticism in light of this devastating demonstration of cartographic techniques.

You mean to say you were not being sarcastic? Then why word it the way you did implying your geography degree gave you some sort of superior position, your advertising "expertise" gave you some sort of superior position, your earlier claim ". A gun sight is not a target. A gun sight is what you see when looking through one of these..." Each and every one of those statements was shot down with examples. Maps with crosshairs despite your claims they are not used to indicate target areas, an ad using crosshairs to indicate a target area, a freaking Bullseye from a shooting supply company, despite your claim that it could not be so. No straw man, simply proving your holier than though statements were wrong. No strawman exists and yes, this was in fact very black and white wasn't it? You said one thing, I showed it was wrong ...black/white.

Looking through a few of Tom's and X's posts it appears you agree on the fundamentals and are arguing about the semantics of 'target', 'bullseye', 'gun sights', etc... Both of you agree that Palin was not inciting violence and both of you tie the graphic into 'hunting', Tom one-upping with a military feel.

X wrote: I would guess that the selection of these gun sight symbols was based on a desire to communicate something about urgency and to tie the "Take Back the 20" campaign in with Palin's known affinity for hunting.

Tom wrote:I admit it seems a bit militaristic and not my cup of tea, but look at her demographics and gun sight targets fit quite well.

and

It has a definite militaristic look to it, I grant you that. But more of a call to a soldier...

Tom, since X initially said no more than you admitted to, why did you throw this out?

even even minded MX jumps into the fray suggesting something else

He suggested less than you did.

Is this really about gun sights and targets or is there an underlying current akin to a lover's quarrel?

My problem is what you are not pointing out. He claimed such crosshairs are not used to denote target areas, he further pointed out a crosshair is not a target. that is simply not correct. He then pulled out his degree in geography and work with advertising like he was an expert, but it simply was not correct. We do in fact agree on much but it is my opinion that criticizing palin here, where they are attempting to link her to the shooting (even after it was proven not the case) it gives a bit of credence to those wild claims. His pointing out (wrongly) that crosshairs are not used to target areas only gives additional credence to the wild accusations ...not that he agrees with them, but his criticism 9in this thread) supports them.

pc

Aren't the most reprehensible positions the ones that need to be protected the most furiously in a free society? Don't the worst criminals deserve the most rigorous defense?

Positions or behaviors?
I would agree with you that true liberty allows reprehensible positions to be held and defended. But not with reprehensible behavior or reprehensible language.
The debate isn't about the positions held, but the way the communication was made. The fact that there was no direct link, so far, between Ms. Palins imagery or the generally febrile level of political discourse doesn't make the debate about conduct less important. That this man probabl;y wasn't motivated directly by extreme language, doesn't mean that most of the country, upon hearing about it, assumed that the Arizona sherrif might be right. And that, is the central reason why the debate over the way political comunication is conducted is important. Because a link seemed plausible, if not probable.
If heated rhetoric didn't have the potential to enfllame some to acts of violence, why are people worried about extreme preaching in Mosques? Why is there an effort to moderate the tone, and indeed the content, of what goes on in some mosques? Perhaps, PC, you'd defend the use of violent imagery in Islamic preaching, as long as the Imams called the violent images only metaphors.? "When I said blow up, of course I meant with lawful protests..."
Language and images matter.

Please note that Ms. Giffords was threatened by the use of the imagery. She said so herself.

Gifford's expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Gifford's seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.
"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.

Ms. Giffords understood that the use of crosshairs was deliberate.... And she obviously felt threatened by the implication of violence contained in the imagery...
So Tom, was she wrong to feel that way? Or was Palin wrong not to respond to Giffords feelings? (Presuming she was aware of them, as I think the issue had been raised)

Be that as it may, Ms. Palin is an avowed Christian. The Golden Rule, "Do Unto others as you would have done unto you."
Does that mean Ms. Palin would have no trouble with violent imagery used against her?
Or is she a bit of a hypocrite?

I don't think targeting districts is in the least bit violent, nobody has suggested her ads called for violence and I don't recall her having trouble with such ads as this:

I really shouldn't let Tom get under my skin, but it's infuriating. He reads what I've written any way he wants to. When most people read, they are making an effort to determine what the writer is trying to communicate; when Tom reads, he sees only... I'm not sure what. What he wants to see? What he thinks an idiot would be saying? What he can most easily criticize? I'm stumped. When he does this I, like everyone else, try to correct his mistaken reading - clear things up - but I end up just digging a deeper hole because his not reading correctly just continues. This leads to a stupid and boring back-and-forth that no one finds interesting and leads further and further off topic... and never ends.

Often, when I correct mistakes in what people have written, I do it so others who read him won't just accept the erroneous info as gospel. I will no longer be doing this when Tom makes an error. You are on your own. I recommend ignoring everything he writes, which is what I'll endeavor to do. I'm here because I hope to learn something, not to have my blood pressure raised.

rickyp wrote:If heated rhetoric didn't have the potential to enfllame some to acts of violence, why are people worried about extreme preaching in Mosques?

Wow. What a great parallel! I mean that is so apt!

I mean, imams telling their parishioners to kill infidels is almost exactly the same thing as political rhetoric--used by both Democrats and Republicans. I mean everyday we see politically-motivated bloodshed in the streets of the US . . . or maybe it's in countries dominated by Islam. No matter--they're all the same to you.

Why is there an effort to moderate the tone, and indeed the content, of what goes on in some mosques? Perhaps, PC, you'd defend the use of violent imagery in Islamic preaching, as long as the Imams called the violent images only metaphors.? "When I said blow up, of course I meant with lawful protests..."
Language and images matter.

Please cite an example of Palin telling anyone to blow something up or to kill people (I'd be happy to provide all manner of examples of imams specifically urging the death of infidels).

Please tell us how any of this is linked to Loughner.

Please note that Ms. Giffords was threatened by the use of the imagery. She said so herself.

That's why she did this event in an unsecured location without any personal security at all--she was worried for her safety. Um, wait, that makes no sense at all. Of course it doesn't, if you actually would think instead of parroting the dailykos or huffpo, you would realize how dopey your logic is here.

Ms. Giffords understood that the use of crosshairs was deliberate.... And she obviously felt threatened by the implication of violence contained in the imagery...

Since you didn't post the link, I'll take a shot at it--oops! My language has consequences! Better hide!

Okay, did she say this during the campaign? Here's a hint: Democrats love to play the victim.

Now, sadly, she subsequently was shot--by an apolitical lunatic. However, other than this statement likely during the campaign, what evidence is there that she felt threatened? If you felt threatened, wouldn't you take steps in ensure your well-being?

When liberals and Democrats use such language, should Republicans feel threatened? Can't they all just hug?

Be that as it may, Ms. Palin is an avowed Christian. The Golden Rule, "Do Unto others as you would have done unto you."

Did she threaten Ms. Giffords?

Did she incite violence against Ms. Giffords?

I would caution you: if you say "yes," then every Democratic candidate or party representative who uses such imagery and language is inciting violence too. Did you know that Bob Beckel (Mondale's campaign manager) claims to have invented the political use of "targeting"?

Does that mean Ms. Palin would have no trouble with violent imagery used against her?
Or is she a bit of a hypocrite?

She has had far worse said about her than anything she said about Giffords' DISTRICT and candidacy--not about her person. Please show me a personal attack by Palin against Giffords.

Meanwhile, some people have suggested Palin should have been aborted, should be gang-raped, faked having a baby so her daughter's "secret" wouldn't be revealed, etc.

Your myopia is acting up.

No no, Ricky is hitting on something important here though he's fallen into it backwards.

Look, I lean right on a lot of things (ok most things) but I share the tent...uncomfortably with some of my fellow conservatives. And one thing I've observed is that when the pendulum swings towards overreaction...it swings hardest on the Conservative side of the fence.

Though I usually find Ricky's moral equivalencies tiresome...in this instance it's worth an examination. If America can silence Palin for this...why can't it clamp down on mosques for ratcheting up the rhetoric?

Believe me guys, limiting freedoms because of implied connections to whack-jobs is not a tactic you want to give your imprimatur to then hand to Conservatives. They'll use it and laugh all the way to the polls while they hoist you from your collective petards.

Believe it or not...I'd hate to see that. And yes, I know the argument can be made that it's happening already. But I've been around...I know how much worse it can get.

really PC. Moral equivalency?
How do you understand the moral imperative in a position unless you compare it to an opposite?

Everyone is asking moderate Muslims to take responsibility for the tenor of the preaching in mosques... To tamp down the extremists. Is it so wrong to also ask the same of those who use extreme language and imagery in political discourse that has the potential to harm? Why is it words matter in one situation but not in another?
Everyone jumped on the extreme language and imagery of Reverend Wright. A man who was angered to his soul about 350 years of history against his people, and who had some justification for his feeling. And yet, his imagery and language were too severe and too extreme to be allowed to continue. And it didn't.
Here's Palin playing the victim, assuming that she's somehow being harmed by being asked to take responsibility for the use of imagery that Ms. Giffords found offensive and dangerous. (Steve are you claiming to never have seen the interview? It was played everywhere for days. Well, everywhere but Fox.)
Accountability is a big thing on the right PC. Should Palin be held to account for the use of extreme imagery in the same way Wright was...?
And Steve, that Giffords continued to conduct herself openly and courageously in the face of the vague threat represented by Palins imagery, the vandalism of her office, and other direct threats speaks only to Gifford's courage. And character. It says nothing about the potential harm that Ms. Palins intemperate imagery could incite.
I caught The Daily show this week where he showed clips of some some ahole Democrat comparing republican rhetoric on the health care bill to Goebells and Nazis. Stewart made the point; why go to this extreme? Call them lies and demonstrate they are lies...but why invoke the greatest evil we've seen in the last hundred years?
Ask the same thing of Palin? Why use gunsights? Why use extreme imagery that connotes violence? The answer shouldn't be, why not? After all its my right!!!! The answer should be, right, bad choice. Lets tone it down.
She, and her apologists, demonstrate her lack of responsibility and her lack of willingness to be held to account for her choices.
Ask yourself this PC. If America can't demand that people who want to lead their nation to be temperate in their discourse, why should they be asking tiny minoritites like Muslims to police the extremists in their community?

rickyp wrote:really PC. Moral equivalency?

Sure.

I don't like Palin and think the gunsights were unnecessary, but I don't buy this formula, if it is what Ricky is selling:

Palin's imagery/language/exhortations, the perversion of thinking they represent, and the hostility that's behind them, is roughly equivalent to, or meaningfully or fairly comparable to, the imagery/language/exhortations of Muslim extremists, the perversion of thinking they represent, and the hostility that's behind them.

I'd like to see Palin change and I'd like to see extreme Islamists change, but these desires have almost nothing in common beyond the basic semantics. "Moral equivalency" in this case consists of taking that extremely superficial similarity and extending it a long way without paying much if any attention to what's dissimilar. By way of entertainment and to illustrate what I mean about dissimilarities, I point you to THIS little vid from Stephen Colbert and THIS satirical parody from Onion News. Brezhenski asks about Palin: "At what point do we not become news? At what point do we just ignore?" Is that something we could ask of bin Laden? We know the danger of ignoring bin Laden. Is there danger in ignoring Palin? As a source of jokes, Palin is a bottomless well; bin Laden jokes aren't uncommon, but they're more in the nature of nervous ridicule than absurd farce.

That said, I don't know if I'd object to sending a fleet of Predator drones up to Wasilla to see if they might find a target morally equivalent to the ones they're currently deployed for in Pakistan.

Ooops. Ain't supposed to use violent imagery, am I?

I am not sure I understand the equivalency Rickyp is speaking of. Are you saying it is morally equivalent to threaten death and terrorism on a people to using a target symbol in political ads? Is that what you are saying?

Minister X wrote:I don't like Palin and think the gunsights were unnecessary, but I don't buy this formula, if it is what Ricky is selling:

Palin's imagery/language/exhortations, the perversion of thinking they represent, and the hostility that's behind them, is roughly equivalent to, or meaningfully or fairly comparable to, the imagery/language/exhortations of Muslim extremists, the perversion of thinking they represent, and the hostility that's behind them.

I'd like to see Palin change and I'd like to see extreme Islamists change, but these desires have almost nothing in common beyond the basic semantics. "Moral equivalency" in this case consists of taking that extremely superficial similarity and extending it a long way without paying much if any attention to what's dissimilar.

As they say in Wasilla, boo-yah! That is a clinical dissection of Ricky's nonsense. Still, I look forward to Ricky's absurd response. If he's got a "strength," it's his absolutely endless ability to disregard the plain truth.

That said, I don't know if I'd object to sending a fleet of Predator drones up to Wasilla to see if they might find a target morally equivalent to the ones they're currently deployed for in Pakistan.
:bomb:
Ooops. Ain't supposed to use violent imagery, am I?

You're a very bad boy.

As an aside, I just can't see her getting the nomination. I should be her, ah, target audience. Not a chance.

I am not sure I understand the equivalency Rickyp is speaking of. Are you saying it is morally equivalent to threaten death and terrorism on a people to using a target symbol in political ads? Is that what you are saying?

No. I'm saying its morally equivalent to demand that the leaders in the Islamic community take responsibility for the language and behaviors of their firebrand preachers, to insist that they govern their mosques in a way that they not be used for inciting hate and violence ...
with the demand that political leaders also take responsibility and govern their own language and that of their constituencies in order to ensure a respectful tone that doesn't incite hate and violence...
Its morally equivalent to demand that Islamic leaders be accountable for the discourse within their community, with the demand that people like Palin be held accountable for the use of imagery that disturbs. (Again, I point to MS Giffords use of Palins gunsites as a device that unsettled her... and to which no response was ever given.)