Somehow all of these comments just slipped people's minds as they blame Trump for the multiple assassination attempts recently. It doesn't seem like it was all that long ago when "words were violence".
"I have always maintained that speech is speech and is not violence, and that the moral deficit lies not with the purveyor of the idea but with the person who acted on it. To paraphrase Viktor Frankl, civilization is only possible because of our capacity to pause between stimulus and response and, in that pause, to choose the one response toward which we wish to throw our weight. But reality is a lot more complicated than that. Ideas do compel people to act, though almost never in a vacuum. What one believes is only one part of a very complex milieu of causes that can move someone to materialize mere thoughts in the world of atoms. What I find really hard to believe though, is that the people who constantly told us over the last 8 years that: - Anti-immigration rhetoric is violence against immigrants - criticizing Islam leads to violence against Muslims - criticizing gender ideology is genocide against trans - Trump saying “China virus” and “Kung Flu” (objectively funny) led to anti-Asian hate crimes all asserted with no proof by the way… suddenly now fail to see the connection between “democracy dies if Trump the Hitler gets elected” and not potential but ACTUAL violence? Violence that already took place? It’s almost as if such claims were just fake concerns deployed to shut down legitimate criticism. Can Trump make his own life easier? Yes, yes he can. If he himself paused a bit more and stopped immediately reacting to stimuli, he wouldn’t constantly be on the receiving end of so much vitriol. But are his assassination attempts his own fault? No. That so many in the legacy media can’t even stop themselves from victim-blaming says so much about where we are as a society. Trump is now 0-2. Whatever doesn’t kill him only makes him stronger. The average American will only see this as some GANSTA-level shit. Meanwhile, the media continues to beclown themselves."
Melissa Chen
https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1835705574366802246?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Chen is a center-right political commentator who's never been particularly pro-Trump, but makes some good points. The line about being able to pause between stimulus and response, is particularly telling. The fact that the default position of the MSM is that we have no the motivation of a shooter, even when there is direct evidence, is disturbing. Yet, how much of that is driven by the need to fill airtime with "breaking news" even when there is none?
https://x.com/leadingreport/status/1835709204910235709?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Well, this took a turn...
https://x.com/michele_tafoya/status/1835778352403079616?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So we have actual evidence of Harris pledging to release all criminal illegal migrants from detention, and it's not particularly newsworthy for the MSM.
4 comments:
A particular blogger rants about "vulgarity", but says nothing of the many examples...and I'm sure yours here is a short list indeed...of hateful rhetoric aimed at the one guy who they were sure would be a failure as president but didn't come close to being one...as has Obama, Biden and Harris if God allows her to prevail.
The extremes they'll go to to maintain the double standard and to excuse behavior that they condemn in others are boundless. Anything but holding up a mirror to their behavior.
Soooo.... a candidate who says the other party's candidate is a fascist seeking to destroy the country... they're WRONG to do so? What if that candidate is Trump?
Why is it you only condemn an action when it's (perceived) to be happening from Democrats? Hypocrisy, perhaps? Maybe you really ARE a bad person, as you confess to be.
But again, if you're a bad person, why should anyone heed your opinions?
"Soooo.... a candidate who says the other party's candidate is a fascist seeking to destroy the country... they're WRONG to do so?"
1. Truth is always a defense. If the accusation is True, it can't be wrong to make.
2. The constitutional guarantee of free speech covers all sorts of idiocy.
3. Unfortunately, hyperbole and gross exaggeration are part and parcel of US political campaigns.
"What if that candidate is Trump?"
So?
"Why is it you only condemn an action when it's (perceived) to be happening from Democrats?"
1. Because the MSM and folks like you ignore these sorts of things by the DFL.
2. Because the DFL excoriates the GOP for doing exactly the things that the DFL does.
3. Because the DFL and the APL has, for years, been promulgating the notion that words are violence and the words incite people to commit violence. The fact that the DFL/APL engages in language that is as bad or worse that that which they claim incites violence seems germane.
4. You and people like you will stay silent when your side engages in this sort of extreme language.
"Hypocrisy, perhaps?"
Yes, pointing out hypocrisy on the left is something I've been known to do on occasion.
"Maybe you really ARE a bad person, as you confess to be."
Maybe you really ARE the idiot you appear to be.
"But again, if you're a bad person, why should anyone heed your opinions?"
But again, if you're an idiot, why should anyone heed your opinions?
As for me, I'm not the one claiming that my opinions are "reality" or that my opinions can't be disputed. I'm just exercising my freedom of expression and I'm not suggesting that anyone should heed my opinions. Humility, you should try it sometime.
Post a Comment