Sunday, January 16, 2011

Intentional smear, nontheless irresistable

Separated at birth? I know, cheap shot. But ...

Are they really so different? Isn't it just a matter of which weapon one chooses?


BearWhizBeer said...

their noses are different.

Steven Ayres said...

That's a point.

Elizabeth May said...

Dear Steven Ayres,
This is so far beneath you. I never thought of you as crude. It really is crude and vulgar to make a point about hateful, irrational, rhetoric, with hateful irrational symbolism. I am not a Glen Beck viewer... but give me a break. You have more dignity than this. You are representing the desperation of the left to blame the right for everything, even though you know full well that the gunman was not affiliated with Glen Beck. I guess you think it is fun.

Steven Ayres said...

You're right, EM, it's fun. But there's more to it than that, and you mischaracterize my understanding of the rhetorical situation as well as my relative dignity.

I think it's intellectually dishonest (albeit diplomatic, which has its uses) to say that left and right do it equally, to pretend that the hateful stuff the rightwing talkers spew is harmless, and to pretend that the "Left" (including me) is saying that Loughner was taking his marching orders from the rightwing talkers. It's just not so, and I challenge you to cite source on that.

No reasonable argument can make the case that what Glenn Beck says on a daily basis is not frequently eliminationist. The point of this graphic is to draw the parallel between eliminationism with a gun and without. You may see it however you like -- art is like that -- but I see it as neither hateful nor irrational. What's irrational is our society tolerating the likes of Beck as an opinion leader. We should send his Bircher fantasies back outside the pale of civilized discourse, where they belong.

Elizabeth May said...

With All Due Respect,

Your relpy was completely eliminationist, especially the part about driving the Birchers our of civilized discourse. You might want to split hairs, but you know if the Editor at the Courier photo shopped a picture of a prominent lefty to make them look like the mug shot of a mass murderer you would call them out.

Maybe I was wrong but I never would have thought that you would stoop below the standards that you have for the Courier, even below the standards that they have for themselves.

Eliminationism is the belief that one's political opponents are "a cancer on the body politic that must be excised — either by separation from the public at large, through censorship or by outright extermination — in order to protect the purity of the nation".

It seems to me that eliminationism is the philosophy that one could use to justify blaming their political opponents for everything evil in the world, even when you know they are not directly or indirectly involved.

Eliminationism really does explain your message concerning the Tucson shooting and the role of so-called right wing rhetoric, very clearly. I just looked up the word today. In the old days we called it McCarthyism, but Eliminationism is more accurate.

No hard feelings... Please don't hate me.

Steven Ayres said...

I understand this is a source of confusion, but "eliminationism" does not mean having society view your ideas as too extreme to consider, it means having society prevent you from speaking or living. CAll that hair-splitting if you like.

If someone made a mashup of Jared Loughner with a 'leftist' who's been calling for the deaths of politicians and pretending he isn't (um, sorry, can't think of one, maybe you can), I call that a fair deal. If you've managed somehow to pigeonhole me as a knee-jerk leftie, I'm sorry to disappoint you. It's not the ideology, it's the violence, and I've been actively working against its online form in various communities since 1988.

I still don't see that citation you were going to share with us.