Oslo, extreme NeoConism, the role of media

Tim Johnston wrote:

 

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.

But, that happily put aside, you seem to be calling for a more humane and civilised kind of political discource, where we do not demonise our opponents, but take them at their word and use rational, non-emotional argument to get all of our ideas across, in which case - amen to that! And I've very happy to take you at your word that that is what you recommend, and to wholeheartedly and earnestly agree with you 100%.

 

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".   To repeat my own points.  The vast majority of political assassinations are committed by those who invoke the political right, all the way back to the murder of Lincoln.  Or are we still supposed to believe that the Republican party in any way still represents his (for the time) defence of equality before the law. (if not in fact)   Second, Neo-cons like Limbaugh, Savage and Coulter, and rabid Zionists like Levant, Piper and Coren, are still broadcast regularly to the masses and have yet been forced to apologise or retract their often violent rhetoric against anyone ANYONE who opposes their extreme authoritarian views.  And shameless lies.  Far as I'm concerned they could all be fired like Beck, according to once common understanding of the rules of broadcasting  but here they still are, broadcasting their filth.   Leftists of any stripe OTOH have almost ZERO presence in mainstream media anymore.   Period.   But Oc the far-right simply claims that pro-corporate and pro-imperialist stations like CNN are somehow "socialist".   Laughable, but their core demographic still applauds. 

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.   

Tim Johnston wrote:

One poster above completely denies that the Unabomber was a devotee of Al Gore - of course he was. It doesn't make Al Gore a writer of hate-speech.

I provided a link for you, but obviously you've ignored it.

Ted Kaczinski began his bombings in 1978 - long before Al Gore had a significant public profile. Caught in 1995, Kaczinski was locked up while Al Gore was still VP under Clinton, years before he became a noted environmentalist.

Any other trial balloons you'd like to see shot down?

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!

Everyone has been called a "nazi" at some point in their message board life.  And it denotes the intellectual bankruptcy of the person making the hyperbolic accusation-- to the point where we even have a term for it, "Godwin's Law".

Unfortunatly, we don't see this message board culture move much into the right wing media pundocracy. 

I do not think that in terms of main stream media there is demonizing of "equal measure".   It's rather one sided, and the side that enjoys the use of violence inspiring rhetoric is the right wing side of the divide.

"But, that happily put aside, you seem to be calling for a more humane and civilised kind of political discource, where we do not demonise our opponents, but take them at their word and use rational, non-emotional argument to get all of our ideas across, in which case - amen to that! And I've very happy to take you at your word that that is what you recommend, and to wholeheartedly and earnestly agree with you 100%."

You don't have to take me at my word.  My bloviating took a shift some years ago and I no longer use (nothwithstanding the very odd slip) de humanizing language.

The shift happened when I read Romeo Dellaire's "Shake Hands with the Devil."

And, in spite of my disspointments with one election result or the other, I do not consider the parties that I dissagree with constitute some kind of existential threat to me or the nation at large. 

These are things I practice.

An attempt to promote such a way of disscussion on the right would be met, as you full well know, with accusations of "political correctness"-- which is the reason cited by Sun media for leaving the Ontario Press Council.