Climate Of Hate - Paul Krugman

[deschutestrout]

Turk Turk Turk. What in my post was "hostile" I didn't say "Turk, you're a stupid idiot in everything you say, Einstein!" THAT would be hostile, no doubt. What I posted was that "sometimes your posts make you look stupid" Or, simply a "shit stirrer". And, sorry if it ruffles you...but from where I sit, sometimes they do.

I retract my original post and replace it with "Turk, have you ever considered that the content and tone of some of your posts may make you look stupid"? And that sometimes you may be perceived as a "shit stirrer"? And that some folks may have a difficult time determining exactly where you stand on some of the issues?

There, I left my personal opinion out of it...which seems to be the issue here.

Sometimes things I do and say make ME look stupid...this I don't believe is one of those instances. Again, draw your own conclusion. And again, no your posts against me are not making me feel stupid.

[turk]

Well, that applied to everyone. The main issue I thought hostile coming from you, who I have nothing against yet, is how you characterize my lack of any coherent "position" and being here just to ruffle feathers. I say you aren't observing well if you think that, and I continue to challenge you to show me the evidence of it. Because there is very very little of it, if any. I make my positions clear and I come for the debate. I don't come to ruffle feathers or attack or poke people inordinately. I challenge their opinions. What is wrong with that? I think this could be a good place for it. Now as for me saying this:

I admit I sometimes reply in a way that can make some people feel stupid, and I'll try to be gentler.

I have no problem saying it, because as I said I intended to make people feel stupid and maybe I did, I dunno. I was using their own words against them. Sometimes I felt stupid too. So what? We can't make each other feel stupid now? I think that is a good thing. Otherwise it's not being honest in a debate. That is kinda the point. I think everyone here does it to a degree. So, now that I am moderator perhaps, I have to be a little gentler in that. Do you disagree with me? By the way, everyone else should continue to do that when appropriate. It is a good thing. If someone says something obviously stupid, then turn it against them. I think that's fine. I will allow that. I outlined the rules and that's it. Everything else goes.

[RussellK]

Did I have this wrong? I thought this was a discussion board. Did it morph into a debate board? One with winners and losers? I thought the point of this board was an exchange of ideas, emphasis on exchange. Sharing ideas should never make someone else feel stupid.

[turk]

I don't know. What I often experience in heated debate which is usually held under the banner of Free Speech, a good thing, is people will make the case for their opinion, which is then open to being refuted or challenged. I don't think it's always that way, but a good amount is. Now just because I openly admit doing that:

I sometimes reply in a way that can make some people feel stupid, and I'll try to be gentler.

It doesn't mean I came into the debate only for that reason. I do it sometimes, but there is a reason. Like this thread "Climate of Hate". I didn't jump in to attack anyone here personally. I did come up with (what I consider) my strong denunciation of Krugman's premise. I found it repulsive and I was emphatic about it. Consequently, I was challenged for that in a way which called into question my motive and even my intelligence. Now, in that case, I think I held my ground fairly well without attacking anyone, but I think I used the tactic I admitted. I turned the challenge and question back on the other. Did they feel stupid? I dunno. I don't think I tried making them feel stupid in that case, but turned the table on them as a way of defending my original premise. You were there. So, I think this is something that happens in controversial discussions. I'm being honest about it.

[turk]

No Democratic cheerleader has ever ever engaged in the divisive Our Job Is To See The President Fail or "Give Us Our Country Back" crap while holding assault rifles at rallies decrying the very government that they so desperately want to regain their majority in!!!!!! Stephen Broden of Texas for example, among other things, he says that America is just like Nazi Germany today -- not because of things like torture and an unrestrained executive, but because of things like health care reform. He says that violent revolution is an option "on the table."
Don't tell me this is "both sides".


Step up to the challenge, turk.
Colin

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/edi ... z1BiYEyTVL

link

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/8175#ixzz1BiZD7cga

“Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce.”
— Mike Malloy on The Mike Malloy Show, December 19, 2007.[MP3 audio]

“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country. He’s making it harder for those who are in power right now to protect the country. He’s about the political divide. It just, I just think the guy’s such a freakin’ loser. You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.”
— Ed Schultz, The Ed Schultz Show, May 11, 2009. [MP3 audio]

“So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! [chuckles] I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”
— Montel Williams talking about Representative Michele Bachmann on Air America’s Montel Across America, September 2, 2009. [MP3 audio]

link

I don't see how you claim the higher ground. Political discourse has always been explosive in this country and the "Climate of Hate" is not exclusively promoted by one side. I find the finger-pointing a very cheap excuse by Krugman.

[ruckman101]

Cool, nice data mining. Irrelevant, though, because it is out of context. I'll leave it to you to data mine the conservative instances of inflammatory language. Context would be a comparison of total instances by both parties in question, frequency and all. The other factor would be audience. Which messages were distributed, echoed over a broader distribution system?

I don't recall anyone suggesting dems/libs/progressives are guiltless of inflammatory language, yet when the issue comes up, the parties immediately that bubble up in the subconscious collective societal mind are.... And that's all it takes, whether it's a lie or not. There are still birthers out there, some recently elected to office.


neal

[turk]

Frequency and all is evenly distributed and so is context of who said what and how either side is to blame for what happened. The parties that bubble up in the subconscious collective societal mind are both parties. There are still truthers out there, some recently shot a congresswoman. What's the point?

[ruckman101]

I would ask for proof of that even spread, but truly wouldn't want to clutter the forum with the citations that sort of effort would take. And distribution? Consequences for the statements?

The point is, an emphatic opinion is much easier to hold with a black and white perspective excluding all the shades of gray. Kind of like scientific research that omits key elements of the equation.


neal

[turk]

That's funny. Why not put the Republican Party on trial for the shootings? That is what you are implying. That they are more culpable than the Democrats. Neither is culpable. The shooter is. We don't need to conjecture farther than the shooter. He did it. Or is that debatable?

[ruckman101]

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth again that simplify the argument to your advantage. "Putting the Republicans on trial" is your perception of what you think I think.

I was merely addressing your claim that both parties are equally inflammatory in their language. A narrower discussion outside whether that "climate of hate" drove the shooter to his actions.

However, I do know that such language emboldens folks prone to crossing the line into violence to do so, as it can seem to affirm the "rightness" of their actions. It's a shorter leap when you feel others share your concerns and sense of urgency.


neal

[deschutestrout]

That's funny. Why not put the Republican Party on trial for the shootings? That is what you are implying.

Sorry but I didn't read that implication in what Ruckman posted. Please, point it out to me, substantiate your claim or the moderator will getcha

And I'd hate to go to bed wondering whether or not Turk is just a shit stirrer. Prove me wrong, please

[turk]

The implication is this is a result of " ". That it needs to be more civil or this is just the beginning we saw. Whether you think so or not, that is the implication. So, if you agree with it, and it seems so, the Republicans, not the Democrats, are responsible, by dint of "more inflammatory language" as it "bubbled up in the subconscious collective societal mind".

In reality inflammatory language always existed. It is not less civil now than it was last year or the year before, etc.. It's a political ploy by the Democrats.

[deschutestrout]

Huh? Your post didn't make sense...and no, I'm not going to point out why. This is a great example of why I often don't have a clue where you actually stand, or what the point is you're attempting, but failing to make.

[ruckman101]

What vitriolic language from progressives/dems/libs such as there is certainly didn't get mainstreamed by tea party events and Murdoch, as that language was from regressives/repubs/conserves.

I also noticed one of your citations was from 2007. The implication there is that examples of such language from the left side is much more difficult to find, suggesting there is much less of it.


neal

[Velokid1]

Whether you think so or not, that is the implication.

What? No sources cited? Not off to a good start, are ya?

Don't set the bar higher than you're able to leap yourself.

And this...

In reality inflammatory language always existed. It is not less civil now than it was last year or the year before, etc.. It's a political ploy by the Democrats.

... most definitely needs to have a source cited. After all, you speak as if you know for a fact that political discourse is as civil as it ever was, which leads me to believe you are aware of some proper research that has been conducted recently on the subject.

Or is it just that you are able to dip your toe in the water and guess the true temperature more accurately than anyone else?