Tuesday, September 22, 2009

"Does hateful rhetoric really lead to violence? History gives us the clear answer: yes"

Somehow I missed this piece by David Niewert on Crooks & Liars on Sunday. It's far too complete and complex to summarize here. It's about the implications of inflammatory speech:
It's not simply the overt threat to the well-being of the president that's important here. There's also the threatening nature of packing heat openly at a public meeting where the presence of guns is highly likely to be interpreted by your fellow citizens as an implied threat to their well-being should they happen to disagree. That is, they not only threaten the president, these guns intimidate and silence your fellow citizens.

The flip side of this was Glenn Beck, responding also to Pelosi's remarks, and insisting that we pay it no mind, because the people she's concerned about are just crazy, and there's nothing we can do about them.
Subtle, exhaustive analysis is one of Niewert's specialties. Go check it out.

1 comment:

Ruth said...

This is all about making the tiniest bit of rational discourse substitute for genius. I read that Sarah Palin almost was articulate talking to investors in Hong Kong early today.