Who is violent...Left or right?? Topic

swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by stinenavy on 3/2/2011 6:05:00 AM (view original):
Seriously though swamp, can you put together a listing of the people who have died from each side and conclude that the left or right have more people die from violence? That's what this topic is about right? I believe this can be quantified if some respect. The ultimate act of violence would be murder. So which side has more murders?
That is of course not what this post is about.

There is still a large amount of buzz from the left that Conservatives in general and the Tea Party are promoting violence through rhetoric. You hear it all the time on liberal talk radio. Randi Rhodes went on about it in length a few days ago.

After Tucson you had a lot of Democrats saying things like "I know Palin didnt cause Tucson, but the republicans should denounce her before we have another Tucson".

There is angry rhetoric on both sides. Crazies will find a reason to be crazy always!
3/2/2011 3:12 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Here's the easy way to tell swampfuck is full of **** on this one:

- the violent (or apocalyptic, in the case of Beck and his ilk) right-wing rhetoric is predominantly aimed at the government. So if anyone were fueled/inspired by such rhetoric, their targets would largely be governmental and authority figures: politicians, cops, census takers, IRS buildings etc.

- the violent left-wing rhetoric, on the other hand, is predominantly aimed at Wall Street. So if anyone were fueled/inspired by such rhetoric, their targets would largely be financial figures: bankers, brokers, traders, accountants etc.

Hmm. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of plenty of examples of the former in the last couple of years, and none of the latter. Probably just that lamestream media obscuring the truth again.
3/2/2011 3:45 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Picking up where I left off...

Statistically speaking, if the political violence being committed by crazies were influenced equally by both left-wing and right-wing windbags, then acts of violence would be comparably distributed between targets of left-wing and right-wing rhetoric -- not necessarily exactly equal, but at least in the same ballpark. But that's clearly not the case - the crazies are predominantly going after the right's targets, not the left's. There must be other factors at work that make the targets of right-wing rhetoric more likely to be victims of violent acts, such as:

- right-wing violent rhetoric is a more focused and more effective 'call to action' than left-wing rhetoric
- right-wing rhetoric is disseminated more widely and more effectively than left-wing rhetoric
- the right-wing audience contains more violence-prone listeners, on shorter fuses, than the left-wing audience
- the targets of right-wing rhetoric are more visible and easier to get to than the targets of left-wing rhetoric

I doubt it's even possible to determine how much each of those factors, and any others than haven't occured to me in the last five minutes, contributes to the picture. But they all would have some impact.
3/2/2011 4:35 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 3/2/2011 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Here's the easy way to tell swampfuck is full of **** on this one:

- the violent (or apocalyptic, in the case of Beck and his ilk) right-wing rhetoric is predominantly aimed at the government. So if anyone were fueled/inspired by such rhetoric, their targets would largely be governmental and authority figures: politicians, cops, census takers, IRS buildings etc.

- the violent left-wing rhetoric, on the other hand, is predominantly aimed at Wall Street. So if anyone were fueled/inspired by such rhetoric, their targets would largely be financial figures: bankers, brokers, traders, accountants etc.

Hmm. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of plenty of examples of the former in the last couple of years, and none of the latter. Probably just that lamestream media obscuring the truth again.
Are you saying that the liberals took down the WTC?   I've heard that there was a cover-up but it seems that the Administration at the time would have been more than happy to point across the aisle at the Dems.
3/2/2011 4:44 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect

Anton made what seems like a very convincing argument. It is flawed.

His first flaw is that there is more attacks to one side than the other. Does this count eco-terror acts? 

The idea that only the right attacks the Government is the second flaw. "Bush lied Soldiers died" is clearly aimed at the government. Much of the rhetoric of the past is aimed at military issues. So any attacks against anything related to the military should be "Left caused attacks" by Anton's standard.

My main point is crazies go after targets based on their own craziness. The case in Tuscon does not seem to have a political reason, but it would probably fit into Anton's "Right attacks" list.

If both sides are using angry rhetoric and the attacks are not coming out even there must be another factor we are not considering.

3/2/2011 4:44 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
And by the way did you notice how calm my Conservative response was, compared to his violent liberal post?
3/2/2011 4:45 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by jiml60 on 3/2/2011 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/1/2011 10:54:00 PM (view original):
Why is it BSC? Because it is Conservative?
I would point it out as bat-**** crazy if it was posted on CNN or MSNBC or any other "liberal" site I saw it on.

That might be true, but you might think that a conservative was BSC at a much lower standard than you mgiht think a liberal was BSC.
3/2/2011 4:46 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 3/2/2011 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Here's the easy way to tell swampfuck is full of **** on this one:

- the violent (or apocalyptic, in the case of Beck and his ilk) right-wing rhetoric is predominantly aimed at the government. So if anyone were fueled/inspired by such rhetoric, their targets would largely be governmental and authority figures: politicians, cops, census takers, IRS buildings etc.

- the violent left-wing rhetoric, on the other hand, is predominantly aimed at Wall Street. So if anyone were fueled/inspired by such rhetoric, their targets would largely be financial figures: bankers, brokers, traders, accountants etc.

Hmm. Maybe it's just me, but I can think of plenty of examples of the former in the last couple of years, and none of the latter. Probably just that lamestream media obscuring the truth again.
Are you saying that the liberals took down the WTC?   I've heard that there was a cover-up but it seems that the Administration at the time would have been more than happy to point across the aisle at the Dems.
Are you suggesting bin Laden listened to a lot of American talk radio? Because otherwise the WTC attack isn't part of the discussion.
3/2/2011 5:26 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You seem to be implying that attacks on financial districts are what the lefties are calling for.

Or is it just possible that crazy people do crazy ****?

Score one for swamp.
3/2/2011 5:45 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Not so much, no.

Your powers are weak, old man. You should not have come.
3/2/2011 6:51 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by stinenavy on 3/2/2011 6:05:00 AM (view original):
Seriously though swamp, can you put together a listing of the people who have died from each side and conclude that the left or right have more people die from violence? That's what this topic is about right? I believe this can be quantified if some respect. The ultimate act of violence would be murder. So which side has more murders?
See what I mean, stinenavy? swamp wants to define "Bush lied people died" as violent rhetoric, and wants to pretend that a treehugger on the corner reaches as many people with his patchouli-scented pamphlets as Limbaugh does with his radio show.

He's never going to agree to definitions which make any damn sense, because the moment he does he loses the debate.
3/2/2011 6:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
A denial is not an argument.   

Sorry, I think swamp is off on many, many things.  But he's dead-on when he said "Crazies will find a reason to be crazy always!" 

Trying to categorize craziness is pure folly.  There are many ways to make swamp look like a dumbass.   One would be to let him post and never reply.   This thread, however, has allowed him to be right because the lib faction has tried so hard to make him look stupid.
3/2/2011 7:02 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2011 7:02:00 PM (view original):
A denial is not an argument.   

Sorry, I think swamp is off on many, many things.  But he's dead-on when he said "Crazies will find a reason to be crazy always!" 

Trying to categorize craziness is pure folly.  There are many ways to make swamp look like a dumbass.   One would be to let him post and never reply.   This thread, however, has allowed him to be right because the lib faction has tried so hard to make him look stupid.
1) First, "crazies will be crazy" doesn't preclude the idea that their craziness can be steered in one direction or another by their environment. There are plenty of recent psychology studies to that effect.

2) Second, your attempt at a rebuttal to my argument was to suggest that 9/11 was influenced by political rhetoric from the future. That might well qualify you as an expert on craziness, but it pretty much disqualifies you from being an expert on solid arguments.
3/3/2011 2:43 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 3/3/2011 2:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2011 7:02:00 PM (view original):
A denial is not an argument.   

Sorry, I think swamp is off on many, many things.  But he's dead-on when he said "Crazies will find a reason to be crazy always!" 

Trying to categorize craziness is pure folly.  There are many ways to make swamp look like a dumbass.   One would be to let him post and never reply.   This thread, however, has allowed him to be right because the lib faction has tried so hard to make him look stupid.
1) First, "crazies will be crazy" doesn't preclude the idea that their craziness can be steered in one direction or another by their environment. There are plenty of recent psychology studies to that effect.

2) Second, your attempt at a rebuttal to my argument was to suggest that 9/11 was influenced by political rhetoric from the future. That might well qualify you as an expert on craziness, but it pretty much disqualifies you from being an expert on solid arguments.
Of course they can be steered, but you can never know where.

What about Catcher in the Rye would make someone kill John Lennon.

It is possible for me to find a disturbed person and convience him to commit a violent act. I dont think it is possible to do it over the air to people in general without knowing what their hopes and fears might be.


3/3/2011 5:25 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 3/3/2011 2:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2011 7:02:00 PM (view original):
A denial is not an argument.   

Sorry, I think swamp is off on many, many things.  But he's dead-on when he said "Crazies will find a reason to be crazy always!" 

Trying to categorize craziness is pure folly.  There are many ways to make swamp look like a dumbass.   One would be to let him post and never reply.   This thread, however, has allowed him to be right because the lib faction has tried so hard to make him look stupid.
1) First, "crazies will be crazy" doesn't preclude the idea that their craziness can be steered in one direction or another by their environment. There are plenty of recent psychology studies to that effect.

2) Second, your attempt at a rebuttal to my argument was to suggest that 9/11 was influenced by political rhetoric from the future. That might well qualify you as an expert on craziness, but it pretty much disqualifies you from being an expert on solid arguments.
Jeez.

1.  What swamp said.  Craziness can get stirred up by any number of things.  Where and how it's displayed will remain unknown until it happens.    That's what makes it crazy.

2.  My rebuttal was to your implication that the liberals attempt to steer their crazies to attack financial institutions.   I was simply pointing out the biggest attack on a financial district, to my knowledge, was committed by a group of crazies with no American political affiliation.    IOW, crazy people do crazy ****.  Sarah Palin saying "We must remove her from office" is not "Kill her now!!!" to a normal person. 
3/3/2011 8:25 AM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Who is violent...Left or right?? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.