For those unfamiliar, Canadian site Babble is a microcosm of the extreme left and adopts a strict censorship code for opinions it finds unpleasant, on the grounds that the forum is a "safe space" where left wing folk should not have to defend their views against Nasty People such as yours truly.
One wrote the following:
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric agaisnt abortion providers, and abortion providers start getting shot.I hadn't realise elements on the left were still blaming Sarah Palin for the Gifford shooting but it seems I was wrong. I replied in kind, and in obvious half-seriousness:
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against government, and the Murrah building in Oklahoma is bombed.
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric-- to the point of putting "cross hairs" on a political oponent, and we have the Gifford's shooting.
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against socialists, and socialists are hunted and murdered.
The left ratchets up the rhetoric against Capitalism: "anti-globalists" go on the rampage.
The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against Israel: Jews get attacked and, like Ilan Halimi, even killed.
The Left ratchets up the rhetoric on the environment: the Unabomber starts blowing stuff up.
The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against "Islamophobes": Kurt Westergaard gets attacked by an axe-wielding nutter.
Fun isn't it? Anyway, after getting threatened with a ban for it I thought better of presenting any actual counter-arguments, which is always a problem when you're getting attacked and insulted.
I thought it was only sporting to point out that, particularly in the US, unkind rhetoric is part and parcel of political discourse and, for better or for worse, it is not going to change anytime soon, particularly considering there is so little actual political violence in the US. I suggested that both sides might want to desist with the death threats and extreme talk and maybe politics would be a more civilised sphere of debate.
Not having any of that were the Babblers, for the most part.
Actually, the connection is exactly the same.
No one is blaming Al Gore for the Unabomber because there is absolutely no connection between them. Ted Kaczynski never quoted Al Gore as Breivek has quoted so many leading neo-con radicals and bigots.
Northern Shoveler wrote:... in spite of that fact that "right wing" ideas have put more food on more tables in more houses than ever.
You may think both sides are equal but that is a lie. The right are oppressors and the left are trying to get food for their tables and decent houses.
A poster named Erik Redburn completely loses the plot:
What, no liberal voices in the mainstream media?!
For example, why is it that certain rightwingers continue to be employed as pundits on suppsedly mainstream stations, -even when they repeatedly call for the deaths of 'liberals, socialists, Muslims, athiests,Feminazis, etc', and incite the violent overthrow of the supposed 'nanny' state. While liberal-left voices are regularly ignored, muted or treated as dangerously radical in the MSM? (and news stories supporting their views regularly downplayd or suppressed)
I'd also like to know why you think it's valid to compare political violence on the left with the right? It seems to me that the vast majority of 'extra-judicial' assassinations and murders are committed by 'crazies' inspired by rightwing ideology, not left. Some not so far from supposedly mainstream views heard regularly on every MS station -ie, that Musims are untrustworthy and the Quran teaches violence, while Christians are only defending 'our values' and the Bible preaches peace, etc etc.
That aside, on what planet does the poster live while claiming the political assassinations are inspired by right wing ideology? All U.S. presidential assassinations (with the possible exception of Lincoln's, although the jury is out) were carried out by leftists. Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist, Sarah Jane Moore (who tried to kill Gerald Ford) was trying to start a revolution. Hinckley was just nuts.
And who has forgotten the Weathermen?
Erik returns to spread some more wisdom with the following:
Now, I don't entirely disagree that there are militant leftists and hotheads, who sometimes say misanthropic things in public and break windows for no good reason, but what I have noticed most strongly is how almost ALL neo-cons posting about this seem most concerned about distancing their own own anti-Islamic and pro-vigilante views with that cowardly child-killers open expression of it --FAR more than expressing any real regret or heartfelt sympathy for the victims.
Well, lad, they wouldn't have to distance themselves if others weren't accusing them of complicity would they? And if they didn't distance themselves, the accusations would just go away?!
I haven't read one person who was mentioned by Breivik not condemn his actions. It seems that, for some people, even their doing so is an admission of guilt.
Erik signs off with some final thoughts, in reply to me and my suggestion that we all try harder to get along and act civilly:
I'm glad to hear you neocons believe in civilized and rational debate too. Then I will repeat the points in which you keep bluntly ignoring. "We" are NOT "equally guilty".
ETA: And any hostility you might meet on the left is not only reaction to the frequently violet rhetoric emplyed but the reactionary beliefs you neo-cons endlessly promote, regardless of consequences. What really makes me smell "nazi" (fascist) is how no matter HOW much you succeed in dragging the rest of us backwards you still feel YOU are the victims, until any shreds of liberalism or charity are seen as needing eradication. Thats not just the view of a tiny lunatic fringe on the left -and the anti-everyone but us right are no longer tiny at all. They/you are now very well funded and organized and represented everywhere power is established. And you sir are very much part of it all.
Ah, so now we're clear. Leftist hostility is only a reaction to right wing hostility! Makes perfect sense to me.
It reminds me of a point I recently made on politics.ie , namely that it is very difficult to point out hatred without identifying the source of that hatred as a potential object of hate. "That person did some hate speech" can be viewed as hateful and vindictive in itself.
Thread is here.
Babbler tries to get some serious Orwellian newspeak going, wants to have the Oslo Killer dubbed a "neoconservative extremist" and is prepared to write to some seriously important liberals to get it done!
"I tried editing the Oslo Killer's wikipedia entry, but was blocked from using the term neoconservative extrmist because no recognized authority has evey used it. So I exchanged an email with Norm Finkelsteinasking him to write an article using this term. He is too busy, so I asked him to forward my request to someone who isn't busy. I also sent the same request to letter to Noam Chomsky's MIT email where someone might read it one day and probaly delete it."*UPDATE*
Banned from Babble!
For the following statement:
I think you will find that all sides demonise the other in more or less equal measure, and you can't seriously be complaining about the term "feminazi" when every conservative has probably been called a Nazi at some point in her life! Anyone who calls for anyone to be killed, or seeks to dehumanise them by making up mad accusations simply doesn't have an argument, and has comprehensively failed in the area of civilised debate.(emphasis the moderator's.) Apparently it contravenes Babble policy to point out that Conservatives get called Nazis all the time - as I was at least once on that thread.
I should emend the last sentence to:
"Anyone who uses a dubious excuse to ban someone from a political forum simply doesn't have an argument, and has comprehensively failed in the area of civilised debate."