Hate Speech 24/7

Posted by on Jun 14, 2009 in Globatron

24/7


FREE SPEECH

Share

11 Comments

  1. Morgan Orlins
    June 14, 2009

    To Globatron, or whoever is responsible for the top post labeled Hate Speech 24/7.

    It’s been my experience that the left labels everything it doesn’t like as “Hate Speech.” It’s easier for a leftist to label conservative views in such a manner than to engage in a thoughtful debate because leftists always lose substantive debates. It’s how leftists tell conservatives to “SHUT UP!”

    Read this blog post and tell me if you think it’s “hate speech.”

    http://jingoist-foundingprinciples.blogspot.com/

    I watched the 4:48 video on top and was speechless at the Rorshock test nature of it’s construction. It was CLEARLY THE MOST out-of-context, 3 second snippet video I have EVER seen! Congratulations, that took some doing. LOL!

    Reply
  2. globatron
    June 14, 2009

    Morgan,

    If you listen to all of the videos you’ll realize that the videos that were chosen all knock and attack the left. You have to be deaf to not hear this type of non-stop attacking of one side and not think there is not hatred behind it.

    Hate speech breads hatred. In a country that prides itself on free speech of course it is allowed but there will always be an outcome to such speech hence the recent killing of Dr. Tiller and the shooting at the Holocaust Museum.

    Liberals are the boogeyman. We get it. Instead of offering other solutions the right wing media that claims they are not media only attacks and stirs the pot of hatred. Scaring folks that their AK-47s will be taken away. Who needs an AK-47? Ted Nugent maybe. Labeling everything Obama and or the “Liberals” are doing as socialism is nothing more than another form of McCarthyism.

    I don’t find your post to be hate speech at all. It in no way compares to the videos that I collaged together above. And if you think those are just 3 second videos snippets that are taking everything out of context, I’d love to see that many 3 second video snippets of “liberal” media bad mouthing conservatives. Please compile them and I’d love to see that as a counter argument to the evidence of hate speech that I have shown above.

    Reply
  3. Akbar Lightning
    June 15, 2009

    much of what you have captured is very simply pointing out explicit lies, it is important for us to hold the media accountable when they lie, when they claim they did not say thing that they did. consistency and truthfulness and non-biased reporting is something we ought to respect regardless of party. Globatron is pointing out a national problem, the use of the public airways (they legally belong to the people) for the private promulgation of a particular political viewpoint.

    I find it equally upsetting when Limbaugh’s comments get reported, because it adds focus to somebody who ought to be ignored. The american people voted overwhelmingly for the policies that Obama offered, amidst the consistent Republican refrain that they were socialist or leftist. The people could not care less, when they get hungry and get tired of being exploited at the gas pump, they gain their common sense pretty fast, looking to the government as a way of securing protection from enemies foreign and domestic.

    Laissez Faire, free market capitalism is a luxury of boom times, that always leads to leaner times. We are a bi-polar nation that must learn to moderate its extreme tendencies, learn the balance between morality and compassion, responsibility to oneself and to others.

    Akbar

    Reply
  4. Morgan Orlins
    June 15, 2009

    I listened to most of it and realized that it was all missing context. If I wanted to hear “hate speech” I’d listen to Lettermen and Olbermann, but instead I listen to Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz regularly. They make reasoned, logical, and CONTEXTUAL arguments every day which are consistent with Natural Law. I recognized many of the snippets that you played, which is why I also recognized the butchered way they were put together.

    I understand that this is also an arts website, so you’ll understand it when I tell you that what works for Picasso doesn’t work for coherent political philosophy.

    Any time a logical thinker hears the words “hate speech” they understand someone is telling them to “shut up!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s

    Tiller was killed by a madman, who cares what motivated him? Give him the death penalty. People are raped and murdered EVERY day. Does it matter if they were motivated by Al Gore’s book–remember the Unibomber–or some silly movie, or even a Church pamphlet?

    This Hate Speech tome is a bit too Orwellian for my tastes, I prefer FREE SPEECH. By definition, that’s speech that you probably don’t like. 🙂

    Hey Akhbar, those “public airways”, does that apply to the internet too? After all the bandwidth is in fact limited. Are you going to invite the government into this little corner of free speech too? Do you realize that by falling for the idiotic “public airways” argument that you’re only making the argument AGAINST free speech? If you prefer that we be government led sheep rather than free men, just admit it! Get you shearing kit ready.

    Reply
  5. Logocentric
    June 15, 2009

    First of all, I think that Globatron’s post is an appropriate response to the apparent psychological seizure our country has recently experienced. I tried for a while to craft a calm and level-headed contribution to this discussion, but it became frustrating because I found myself saying things that are already being said so well by other commentators. So I offer Frank Rich’s latest op-ed in the (NY) Times:

    June 14, 2009
    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    The Obama Haters’ Silent Enablers

    By FRANK RICH
    WHEN a Fox News anchor, reacting to his own network’s surging e-mail traffic, warns urgently on-camera of a rise in hate-filled, “amped up” Americans who are “taking the extra step and getting the gun out,” maybe we should listen. He has better sources in that underground than most.

    The anchor was Shepard Smith, speaking after Wednesday’s mayhem at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Unlike the bloviators at his network and elsewhere on cable, Smith is famous for his highly caffeinated news-reading, not any political agenda. But very occasionally — notably during Hurricane Katrina — he hits the Howard Beale mad-as-hell wall. Joining those at Fox who routinely disregard the network’s “We report, you decide” mantra, he both reported and decided, loudly.

    What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had “become more and more frightening” in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he “could read a hundred” messages spewing “hate that’s not based in fact,” much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman’s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans “out there in a scary place,” Smith said.

    Then he brought up another recent gunman: “If you’re one who believes that abortion is murder, at what point do you go out and kill someone who’s performing abortions?” An answer, he said, was provided by Dr. George Tiller’s killer. He went on: “If you are one who believes these sorts of things about the president of the United States …” He left the rest of that chilling sentence unsaid.

    These are extraordinary words to hear on Fox. The network’s highest-rated star, Bill O’Reilly, had assailed Tiller, calling him “Tiller the baby killer” and likening him to the Nazis, on 29 of his shows before the doctor was murdered at his church in Kansas. O’Reilly was unrepentant, stating that only “pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters” would link him to the crime. But now another Fox star, while stopping short of blaming O’Reilly, was breaching his network’s brand of political correctness: he tied the far-right loners who had gotten their guns out in Wichita and Washington to the mounting fury of Obama haters.

    What is this fury about? In his scant 145 days in office, the new president has not remotely matched the Bush record in deficit creation. Nor has he repealed the right to bear arms or exacerbated the wars he inherited. He has tried more than his predecessor ever did to reach across the aisle. But none of that seems to matter. A sizable minority of Americans is irrationally fearful of the fast-moving generational, cultural and racial turnover Obama embodies — indeed, of the 21st century itself. That minority is now getting angrier in inverse relationship to his popularity with the vast majority of the country. Change can be frightening and traumatic, especially if it’s not change you can believe in.

    We don’t know whether the tiny subset of domestic terrorists in this crowd is egged on by political or media demagogues — though we do tend to assume that foreign jihadists respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the words of their most fanatical leaders and polemicists. But well before the latest murderers struck — well before another “antigovernment” Obama hater went on a cop-killing rampage in Pittsburgh in April — there have been indications that this rage could spiral out of control.

    This was evident during the campaign, when hotheads greeted Obama’s name with “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” at G.O.P. rallies. At first the McCain-Palin campaign fed the anger with accusations that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” But later John McCain thought better of it and defended his opponent’s honor to a town-hall participant who vented her fears of the Democrats’ “Arab” candidate. Although two neo-Nazi skinheads were arrested in an assassination plot against Obama two weeks before Election Day, the fever broke after McCain exercised leadership.

    That honeymoon, if it was one, is over. Conservatives have legitimate ideological beefs with Obama, rightly expressed in sharp language. But the invective in some quarters has unmistakably amped up. The writer Camille Paglia, a political independent and confessed talk-radio fan, detected a shift toward paranoia in the air waves by mid-May. When “the tone darkens toward a rhetoric of purgation and annihilation,” she observed in Salon, “there is reason for alarm.” She cited a “joke” repeated by a Rush Limbaugh fill-in host, a talk-radio jock from Dallas of all places, about how “any U.S. soldier” who found himself with only two bullets in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden would use both shots to assassinate Pelosi and then strangle Reid and bin Laden.

    This homicide-saturated vituperation is endemic among mini-Limbaughs. Glenn Beck has dipped into O’Reilly’s Holocaust analogies to liken Obama’s policy on stem-cell research to the eugenics that led to “the final solution” and the quest for “a master race.” After James von Brunn’s rampage at the Holocaust museum, Beck rushed onto Fox News to describe the Obama-hating killer as a “lone gunman nutjob.” Yet in the same show Beck also said von Brunn was a symptom that “the pot in America is boiling,” as if Beck himself were not the boiling pot cheering the kettle on.

    But hyperbole from the usual suspects in the entertainment arena of TV and radio is not the whole story. What’s startling is the spillover of this poison into the conservative political establishment. Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan G.O.P. chairman who ran for the party’s national chairmanship this year, seriously suggested in April that Republicans should stop calling Obama a socialist because “it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.” Anuzis pushed “fascism” instead, because “everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.” He didn’t seem to grasp that “fascism” is nonsensical as a description of the Obama administration or that there might be a risk in slurring a president with a word that most find “bad” because it evokes a mass-murderer like Hitler.

    The Anuzis “fascism” solution to the Obama problem has caught fire. The president’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and his speech in Cairo have only exacerbated the ugliness. The venomous personal attacks on Sotomayor have little to do with the 3,000-plus cases she’s adjudicated in nearly 17 years on the bench or her thoughts about the judgment of “a wise Latina woman.” She has been tarred as a member of “the Latino KKK” (by the former Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo), as well as a racist and a David Duke (by Limbaugh), and portrayed, in a bizarre two-for-one ethnic caricature, as a slant-eyed Asian on the cover of National Review. Uniting all these insults is an aggrieved note of white victimization only a shade less explicit than that in von Brunn’s white supremacist screeds.

    Obama’s Cairo address, meanwhile, prompted over-the-top accusations reminiscent of those campaign rally cries of “Treason!” It was a prominent former Reagan defense official, Frank Gaffney, not some fringe crackpot, who accused Obama in The Washington Times of engaging “in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain.” He claimed that the president — a lifelong Christian — “may still be” a Muslim and is aligned with “the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.” Gaffney linked Obama by innuendo with Islamic “charities” that “have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.”

    If this isn’t a handy rationalization for another lone nutjob to take the law into his own hands against a supposed terrorism supporter, what is? Any such nutjob can easily grab a weapon. Gun enthusiasts have been on a shopping spree since the election, with some areas of our country reporting percentage sales increases in the mid-to-high double digits, recession be damned.

    The question, Shepard Smith said on Fox last week, is “if there is really a way to put a hold on” those who might run amok. We’re not about to repeal the First or Second Amendments. Hard-core haters resolutely dismiss any “mainstream media” debunking of their conspiracy theories. The only voices that might penetrate their alternative reality — I emphasize might — belong to conservative leaders with the guts and clout to step up as McCain did last fall. Where are they? The genteel public debate in right-leaning intellectual circles about the conservative movement’s future will be buried by history if these insistent alarms are met with silence.

    It’s typical of this dereliction of responsibility that when the Department of Homeland Security released a plausible (and, tragically, prescient) report about far-right domestic terrorism two months ago, the conservative response was to trash it as “the height of insult,” in the words of the G.O.P. chairman Michael Steele. But as Smith also said last week, Homeland Security was “warning us for a reason.”

    No matter. Last week it was business as usual, as Republican leaders nattered ad infinitum over the juvenile rivalry of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich at the party’s big Washington fund-raiser. Few if any mentioned, let alone questioned, the ominous script delivered by the actor Jon Voight with the G.O.P. imprimatur at that same event. Voight’s devout wish was to “bring an end to this false prophet Obama.”

    This kind of rhetoric, with its pseudo-Scriptural call to action, is toxic. It is getting louder each day of the Obama presidency. No one, not even Fox News viewers, can say they weren’t warned.

    Reply
  6. Morgan Orlins
    June 15, 2009

    I forgot one STERLING example of level-headed thinking (sarcasm)…..Jenine Garafalo! Between her and Olbermann and Lettermen we “got us some true hate speech.”

    Now, we can either accept each other’s political differences and debate them, OR we can try hard to shut each other down with the label of “hate speech.” Your call guys. What’s Frank Rich have to say about that?

    Reply
  7. Globatron
    June 15, 2009

    I am not Frank Rich but I’ll try my best to answer for him.

    The difference between your example of the liberal’s hate speech is that they are coming from comedians.

    So a joke coming from a comedian is a bit different than true hatred being recycled in a 24 news cycle over and over. You would think that a journalist would be a better non-biased news source than a comedian wouldn’t you? I would hope so.

    That’s what I don’t understand. How can you compare a comedian to a journalist? That seems to be the only example conservative media can hold up and say, “looky there that was hurtful, listen to what Letterman said.”

    There should be no comparison between a comedian and a “true” news journalist. The issue that I question is how can these folks truly be journalist. Isn’t there some sort of oath they take to stay unbiased, etc.? When did we quit reporting the news and begin reporting only opinion?

    And Morgan, I completely agree with your last statement about debating the political differences, but to say I am doing anything but being observant in this post of a true phenomenon that is going on in the right wing media (currently) is nonsense. I have not tried to shut anyone up. I am truly open to debate.

    If you can supply me some examples of hateful comments by the left that are not from comedians I would appreciate it. I doubt you can find many though.

    And to ask you a few question to help me understand a little better, “do you not see this type of commentary going on and do you agree with the tone and rhetoric that is currently being perpetuated by the right wing media? What type of repercussions do you think will happen if this type of rhetoric continues at the rate in which it is? How do you feel we can have unity in our country when the response to this type of hateful speech is being dismissed as just the left trying to shut people up?”

    Reply
  8. Akbar Lightning
    June 15, 2009

    I spent quite a few years wondering why liberals were often so lacking in determination, why liberals were often so unwilling to be proud and aggressive proponents of a liberals, socially conscious program of action.

    and then i realized the answer was incredibly simple and something that anybody who has attended an american high-school can understand. the republicans have guns and a willingness to use them. to me, all of this verifies this theory for me, that the answer to liberal weakness is just this simple. the threat of death to those who seek true justice is omnipresent, and nobody who has studied history can avoid confronting this reality.

    those who practice the arts of inequality, ignorance and oppression are willing, at all times, to defend their positions through violence and murder. This media phenomenon is a conscious and organized reminder to Obama and those who have been freely elected by a free people that if they give away too much, if they try too hard to help people, that they will face dire consequences.

    those of us who are more free, artists, comedians, creative people, writers, etc. we have the ability to see this more dynamically, and realize that dependence upon laws on paper is a weakness of logic. acknowledgment of the power dynamic at work is key. those of us seeking true peace and true equality must understand that we are facing hi-powered people with the willingness to wipe the earth clean of ‘free speech.’ there have been occasional pockets in history of artists who realized that they could serve this function for their society, and I for one feel inclined toward this orientation.

    Unfortunately we will not win against Morgan ‘on paper’, legally he is right. these nutjobs are in some way slipping through the cracks in the law to practice their propaganda. What is more unfortunate is that the conservative perspective gets mired in this extremist wing, so those of us who are willing to exercise a healthy skepticism of Obama’s tactics are busy fighting for a kind of civility that is fitting for a democracy and Obama is given more creative license than I would really like. I happen to be one of those people who is frightened he is more conservative than I would like, and I’m so busy defending him because of his conservatism I get confused.

    again, it has often been said sarcastically ‘what, would you want to live in a world where everybody was just like you?’ and again, i say, ‘yeah, what a relief that would be.’ but then again, that is what every nutjob of every color, shape and political orientation is fighting for. it is important for us to truly craft something so powerful that people in the extremes are drawn to it. i think that is what Obama has done, stayed in the solution and away from the problems.

    Akbar

    Reply
  9. Jason
    June 15, 2009

    People just need to come to terms with the fact that the world is evolving and shrinking at an exponential rate. Like the article above quoted, people are afraid of change and we are in an ever changing world, so fear to some people is never ending. But I would hope that one day people would change their mindset to realise that fear of the unknown is an irrational fear. You can’t fear what you don’t know, you can be cautious sure, but being fearful is just illogical. Ermm, I think I was just rambling there…

    Anyway, the vitriole being displayed not only in politics, but sports, daily interactions and other minutiae is overwhelming and I really don’t understand it.

    Maybe someone should start a church based on Vulcan teachings…

    Reply
  10. Akbar Lightning
    June 15, 2009

    I agree completely Jason, live long and prosper

    Reply
  11. SJR
    October 9, 2009

    Morgan –

    The flaws with your logic are many but for what it’s worth…the main problem with people that share your perspective is that you allow the craziest and loudest of the nuts to speak for you all. None of you check them on it or condemn them when they express things that are clearly ridiculous/hateful.

    Case in point: You mentioned Janeane Garofalo. Clearly she strikes a nerve with the opposition. You go on to talk about “accepting each other’s political differences and debating them”. That’s all well and fine except that Garafalo receives death threats on a regular basis simply due to her views.

    In a perfect world, your party would condemn those actions and invite each other to engage in serious debate. But they do not. They remain silent. Or they shout incoherently at meetings designed to invite the very debate you are talking about. They prefer name-calling and smears to acceptance and debate”.

    You are not only the party of “No!” You are the party of denial as well.

    Reply

Leave a Reply