Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

While I think it's important to realize that extremist have been around forever, their methods of disseminating propaganda has changed dramatically.

Instead of radical newspapers, subversive flyers, whispered recruiting and basement meetings, these people have 24 hour podiums on multiple tv and radio stations.

That sort of bombardment is HIGHLY effective and I believe it has contributed to the volatile tone of politics today, and helps these psychos hone their hatred and justify their actions.

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"

Originally Posted by Ryobi

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"



Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

Actually, the accusation was, Jews used the blood of Christian children to paint the doorways to their homes at passover. That is the first I've heard the matzoh bread example. (used for symbolism of beliefs, not nourishment.) (not jumping on DC, I think she knows.)

I'm not so sure about the dog whistle either. Anyone can "hear" the bullshit 24/7.

Thanks DC!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"

I love me some Mark Morford. I don't always agree with him but he always makes me laugh.

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

[/QUOTE]

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics. Ms Palin is obviously trying to paint herself as the victim and is going out of her way to portray perfectly reasonable expressions of concern about political rhetoric in spurious stories that people are 'blaming Sarah Palin for the Tucson shooting'. Except that isn't what is happening. What's happening is that people are saying, rightly, that if you are trying to see if your gas tank is empty by lighting a match, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when your car explodes. Did you *intend* for the car to explode? No. But it blew up nevertheless.

I'm going to risk a "Godwin's Law" violation and point something out:

In the 20s and early 30s, before Hitler came to power, a similar cheeky game was played in Germany and the Nazis worked the refs (i.e. the press) in much the same way. Some Nazi would give a real red-meat, barn-burner of a speech and then some SA thugs would, on their way to the nearest pub, beat up the first Jew or Communist they happened across. Predictable denunciations would follow and the Nazis would claim that no one in the party advocated violence. Then it would happen again. And again. And again. Even as late as the fall of 1938, the Nazis were claiming that no linkage could be made between the anti-Semtic language in the Völkischer Beobachter (Racial Observer) or Der Stuermer (The Stormer or The Attacker) and the violent actions.

Now, I want to be clear that I am NOT---absolutely NOT--comparing the modern American Right with the Nazis. That is not my point here. My point is that the game that is being played has a long provenance. The Nazis used it. American segregationists used the same tactic--they would print or speak the most vile slanders against blacks and then, when someone took them at their word and actually DID something there were, as we are seeing now, the denials that the words of violence had anything to do with violent acts.

Cheers
Aj

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics. [/QUOTE]

oh i didn't make it clear that was quoted from the linked story...i DO think this is Dog whistle politics. As soon as i heard about her statement i thought about GWB and how he'd mention the Dred Scott case to cue the religious right. I think Palin's use of the term blood libel associated with the media is meant to play on very ugly sentiments that associate the media with jews and Srah with Jesus.

it's too obscure a term to have been chosen at random, and too sloppy a fit to really be meant for the context in which it appears to appear

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics.

oh i didn't make it clear that was quoted from the linked story...i DO think this is Dog whistle politics. As soon as i heard about her statement i thought about GWB and how he'd mention the Dred Scott case to cue the religious right. I think Palin's use of the term blood libel associated with the media is meant to play on very ugly sentiments that associate the media with jews and Srah with Jesus.

it's too obscure a term to have been chosen at random, and too sloppy a fit to really be meant for the context in which it appears to appear

[/QUOTE]

I hadn't made that association. Now I see it. Good point!