Thread: Are you proud of this level of discourse??

It would be nice if people that decry whatever wouldn't make up reasons why it's completely different and ok if their side does it.

Originally Posted by tessaesque

Wasn't it the left-leaners in the media who went around screaming for a change in dialogue following the Tucson shooting and Palin's "Crosshairs" campaign mapping? If these tweets are legitimate I'd expect some level of backlash from the public.

“Kill Scott Walker”: Angry libs flood Twitter with death threats after Wisconsin recall defeat | Twitchy

Since when is Twitter an example of "discourse," let alone discourse that we should be proud of? It's...Twitter. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives on Twitter who probably post this kind of stuff on a regular basis. When liberal public officials start advocating violence, this thread will be appropriate, but right now you're just asking why the public isn't "backlashing" at people it hardly considers relevant anyway.

Originally Posted by tessaesque

I see that difference. I just don't think it matters much whether it's coming from Palin in a commentary piece or @AssHat91 on twitter. If you're going to call for it to stop, I think the standard should be universal.

I think the morons on twitter are a reflection of the idiocy spewed by pundits and politicians. See, that kind of rhetoric only appeals to idiots, and idiots will follow suit fast as hell. I consider the politicians and pundits the cause, the morons on twitter, or even here at DP, are merely symptoms.

The problem is that we try to say that Morons are just as responsible as people who are paid to engage in the discourse. That's an absurd position, IMO.

Originally Posted by tessaesque

I see that difference. I just don't think it matters much whether it's coming from Palin in a commentary piece or @AssHat91 on twitter. If you're going to call for it to stop, I think the standard should be universal.

Whether or not they should care about Palin and Twitter users is irrelevant to your original implication that the liberal media is hypocritical over its response to these twitter users versus their response to public figures like Palin. That implication was based on the false premise that they're standard for criticizing violent rhetoric was equal. It isn't. Consequently, there was no reason for you to expect backlash from the public or the liberal media.

Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive

Whether or not they should care about Palin and Twitter users is irrelevant to your original implication that the liberal media is hypocritical over its response to these twitter users versus their response to public figures like Palin. That implication was based on the false premise that they're standard for criticizing violent rhetoric was equal. It isn't. Consequently, there was no reason for you to expect backlash from the public or the liberal media.

I totally disagree. When anybody (and apparently when several people) starts parading around a public forum calling for the death of an elected official, the response should be more critical than when somebody like Palin refers to districts or candidates as being in "political crosshairs". The fact that we waste time on ridiculous accusations of "violence" as was the case with Palin when we're willing to simply dismiss explicit calls for violence is shameful. And it is hypocritical to act as though one is less significant than the other, especially when they speak in generalities as they did during that idiotic controversy.

Originally Posted by X Factor

It would be nice if people that decry whatever wouldn't make up reasons why it's completely different and ok if their side does it.

Has anyone done that yet?

Originally Posted by tessaesque

I totally disagree. When anybody (and apparently when several people) starts parading around a public forum calling for the death of an elected official, the response should be more critical than when somebody like Palin refers to districts or candidates as being in "political crosshairs". The fact that we waste time on ridiculous accusations of "violence" as was the case with Palin when we're willing to simply dismiss explicit calls for violence is shameful. And it is hypocritical to act as though one is less significant than the other, especially when they speak in generalities as they did during that idiotic controversy.

Violent rhetoric from influential public figures is not as a significant as violent rhetoric from random people on Twitter. If the media spent all their time dealing with all the morons on Twitter calling for violence, every single day would be dedicated to those people. As I said before, there are always people on social networks of every political persuasion who say those kinds of things. The mistake that you and your source are making is assuming that these people are all of sudden relevant today when they and people like them have probably been posted the same kind of stuff for years. They aren't suddenly relevant today. However, public figures are always relevant and when they use language irresponsibly, it's news. When you're crazy Uncle Phil uses language irresponsibly, it isn't.

Originally Posted by soccerboy22

Proud moment for these people's parents.

They probably learned it from their parents.

Originally Posted by X Factor

It would be nice if people that decry whatever wouldn't make up reasons why it's completely different and ok if their side does it.

No one should be proud of internet discourse on almost any subject matter. The internet makes it far too easy for the idiocy of the "every man" to spread.

Originally Posted by tessaesque

I see that difference. I just don't think it matters much whether it's coming from Palin in a commentary piece or @AssHat91 on twitter. If you're going to call for it to stop, I think the standard should be universal.

It does matter. No one is likely to hurt anyone on @AssHat91's say so. Someone might very well act on Palin's command to kill. The words of a public figure like that carry more weight. Someone in the public eye ought to know better.