Another "Isolated Incident"

[Memeticemetic]

That is, unless we all already have a pretty good idea of who is most likely responsible...

Yeah. ImprobableJoe is responsible. He started this thread as a cunning attempt to throw us off the scent. We're on to you man, you won't get away with this!

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Is the use of "isolated incident" a way the FBI tries to keep panic to a minimum? It would make sense it the FBI said it was an isolated incident to keep panic to a minimum. It would be dishonest though.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Is the use of "isolated incident" a way the FBI tries to keep panic to a minimum? It would make sense it the FBI said it was an isolated incident to keep panic to a minimum. It would be dishonest though.

No, it is a way for Joe to express sarcasm at the way some people pretend that there are no patterns of behavior and no associations between crimes when that association seems to reflect poorly on them. That's American conservatives these days, who have as a group taken most of the racists and crazies under their "big tent" rather than try to convince the majority of Americans that their views are worth listening to. Since less than half of Americans vote in most elections, all one party has to do is convince 20-25% of the population to show up to vote, and racists and crazies tend to be easier to motivate than moderates. So they abandon the positions that the majority holds (just look at the polls, most people are against most of the "conservative" ideas.)

Then they pretend that those same racists and crazies are not a fundamental part of their political movement when something terrible happens. They are wildly anti-tax, but they had nothing to do with the anti-tax guy who flew his plane into the IRS offices. They are anti-immigrant, but they had nothing to do with immigrants being gunned down by their fellow anti-immigrants. They embraced the "Southern Strategy" of pitting white voters against blacks and other minorities in order to achieve electoral gains, but they aren't responsible when those same voters act on the racism that they foster. They call everyone who isn't one of them a Nazi, Communist, Marxist, Fascist, and describe us as a disease or cancer that must be removed from society, and by the way buy more guns!... but they aren't responsible when someone takes a gun and "removes" a bunch of people.

So you just know that a bomb left on an MLK parade route was really meant for a fancy bank heist or to break someone out of prison like in the old westerns, and was left on that bench completely by accident. It has nothing to do with the decades of scapegoating of black people, after decades of open discrimination and second-class citizen status, after centuries of slavery, murder, and rape. Completely unrelated. :facepalm:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That is, unless we all already have a pretty good idea of who is most likely responsible...

Yeah. ImprobableJoe is responsible. He started this thread as a cunning attempt to throw us off the scent. We're on to you man, you won't get away with this!

Dude, read my blog... I can barely solder a plug onto the end of a cable without setting fire to something. If I tried to build a bomb I'd be a pink mist floating over a large crater in the first ten minutes.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Is the use of "isolated incident" a way the FBI tries to keep panic to a minimum? It would make sense it the FBI said it was an isolated incident to keep panic to a minimum. It would be dishonest though.

No, it is a way for Joe to express sarcasm at the way some people pretend that there are no patterns of behavior and no associations between crimes when that association seems to reflect poorly on them. That's American conservatives these days, who have as a group taken most of the racists and crazies under their "big tent" rather than try to convince the majority of Americans that their views are worth listening to. Since less than half of Americans vote in most elections, all one party has to do is convince 20-25% of the population to show up to vote, and racists and crazies tend to be easier to motivate than moderates. So they abandon the positions that the majority holds (just look at the polls, most people are against most of the "conservative" ideas.)

Then they pretend that those same racists and crazies are not a fundamental part of their political movement when something terrible happens. They are wildly anti-tax, but they had nothing to do with the anti-tax guy who flew his plane into the IRS offices. They are anti-immigrant, but they had nothing to do with immigrants being gunned down by their fellow anti-immigrants. They embraced the "Southern Strategy" of pitting white voters against blacks and other minorities in order to achieve electoral gains, but they aren't responsible when those same voters act on the racism that they foster. They call everyone who isn't one of them a Nazi, Communist, Marxist, Fascist, and describe us as a disease or cancer that must be removed from society, and by the way buy more guns!... but they aren't responsible when someone takes a gun and "removes" a bunch of people.

So you just know that a bomb left on an MLK parade route was really meant for a fancy bank heist or to break someone out of prison like in the old westerns, and was left on that bench completely by accident. It has nothing to do with the decades of scapegoating of black people, after decades of open discrimination and second-class citizen status, after centuries of slavery, murder, and rape. Completely unrelated. :facepalm:

I thought that the article was the one who called it an isolated incident. But how is the liberal media handling this?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I thought that the article was the one who called it an isolated incident. But how is the liberal media handling this?

What liberal media?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I thought that the article was the one who called it an isolated incident. But how is the liberal media handling this?

What liberal media?

Isn't there liberal media in the US or do I have inaccurate info on the media?

 

[BrainBlow]

The definition of "liberal media" in America seems to be "anything that doesn't kiss the ass of the right wing".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Isn't there liberal media in the US or do I have inaccurate info on the media?

There's halfway liberal media for a couple of hours on MSNBC, and some bloggers and other Internet folks... almost nothing approaching socialism or other strongly leftist viewpoints as compared to the rest of the world. Otherwise, the American media is completely conservative in the truest sense: they are guardians and spokesmen for the status quo, the powerful interests that pay their salaries, and believers in a definition of "centrist" that is built on false equivalence, refusal to take sides against power, and "splitting the difference" even when one side is lying. Here's a good description of the reality of the media ideology:

http://pressthink.org/2010/06/clown...on-the-actual-ideology-of-the-american-press/

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Great minds think alike... even the title is the same!!! Here's Digby's list of other isolated incidents:

-- July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how "liberals" are "destroying America," walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

-- October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

-- December 2008: A pair of "Patriot" movement radicals -- the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

-- December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.

-- January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

-- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

-- April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

-- April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

-- May 2009: A "sovereign citizen" named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

-- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

-- February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one "domestic terrorism" too.)

-- March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

-- March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

-- May 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

-- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

-- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

-- July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.

-- September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year--old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the "Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden" in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

I hate to do a huge quote like that, but I really think it is necessary. It helps to see long lists so that we can really take in how many isolated, completely unrelated incidents have happened in the recent past.

That's not counting the head-stomped protester at the Rand Paul rally, the Alaskan reporter illegally detained at a Joe Wilson rally, or countless other non-fatal acts of violence. Those are isolated incidents too.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Great minds think alike... even the title is the same!!! Here's Digby's list of other isolated incidents:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/


Compare Digby's list to Michelle Malkin's list of "liberal violence" and Malkin's list quickly looks like a joke. While there are a few legitimate cases of violent rhetoric and violent acts from the left, a good chunk are multiple acts of petty vandalism such as destroying Bush-Cheney signs. Also, a couple of cases of throwing food at people, a depiction of a chimp taking a crap on Bush's head, a case where a woman filed a fraudulent claim of being a victim of a hate crime and one case where a guy made a lewd gesture at Ann Coulter, .

Funny how Malkin had to pad her list of "violent leftie acts" with such trivial offenses and one can easily find just as many or more worse acts committed by the Right. Also, she tries to attach violent acts by extremist muslims to liberals. Since when are hardcore muslims of the liberal persuasion? The bulk of Malkin's list of violence by the Left looks silly compared to the list of actual physical violence and murders committed by the Right.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/


Compare Digby's list to Michelle Malkin's list of "liberal violence" and Malkin's list quickly looks like a joke. While there are a few legitimate cases of violent rhetoric and violent acts from the left, a good chunk are multiple acts of petty vandalism such as destroying Bush-Cheney signs. Also, a couple of cases of throwing food at people, a depiction of a chimp taking a crap on Bush's head, a case where a woman filed a fraudulent claim of being a victim of a hate crime and one case where a guy made a lewd gesture at Ann Coulter, .

Funny how Malkin had to pad her list of "violent leftie acts" with such trivial offenses and one can easily find just as many or more worse acts committed by the Right. Also, she tries to attach violent acts by extremist muslims to liberals. Since when are hardcore muslims of the liberal persuasion? The bulk of Malkin's list of violence by the Left looks silly compared to the list of actual physical violence and murders committed by the Right.

Intellectual honesty/integrity/consistency? Not from the far-right, not now and not ever. Shit that is bad but no one has ever seen from "the left", criticism that makes Republicans feel all butthurt especially when directed at their more vocally bigoted members, plus some fabricated nonsense, versus rhetoric from Fox "News" in prime-time, Republican elected official, and actual violent acts from right-wingers. The difference is that you have to dig at the fringe of the left to find examples, while the far-right "fringe" is what the Republican Party and right-wing media caters to and encourages.

Yeah, Michelle Malkin is like a dumber, more poorly-sourced Ann Coulter. Someone needs to explain to her that a group doesn't become a "hate mob" or whatever when she disagrees with their politics.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

There seems to be a bit of faulty logic here, of the "Racist! You're a racist!" persuasion. Sure, racists exist. Most of the vocal ones tend to be conservative. This doesn't mean that most conservatives are racist, or that racist sentiment informs most conservative policy.

There are plenty of crazies who call for violent animal liberation or extreme population control. Most of these people tend to be leftists. However, I wouldn't call leftists to account for their actions, or impute the beliefs of a relatively small group on to a whole ideology.

 

[Memeticemetic]

There are plenty of crazies who call for violent animal liberation or extreme population control. Most of these people tend to be leftists. However, I wouldn't call leftists to account for their actions, or impute the beliefs of a relatively small group on to a whole ideology.

But what would be your opinion of a leftist with a bully pulpit who endorses, explicitly or implicitly, violent animal liberation? Would you not then be inclined to apportion some, not all, of the blame on those who endorsed these actions when some benighted soul goes out and torches an animal research center?

And what are you referring to with extreme population control? What leftist is calling for this? What manifesto of a madman has been discovered after he blew up a pediatric ward? Really, I honestly have no idea what you mean here.

What we're doing is not to indict all of right wing ideology by the actions and words of some right wingers. If you'll read between the lines of many of us who disagree with you, you may find we're more sympathetic to the right wing than you suspect. We are saying that those who spew vitriol, racism and hatred are at least partially responsible for the atrocious acts they inspire. If you can agree to that much at least, maybe we can move on to discuss how we determine responsibility, what types of fanatics are likely to be stirred up by what type of rhetoric, I dunno, something, freakin' anything that shows maybe we've made some progress.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

There are plenty of crazies who call for violent animal liberation or extreme population control. Most of these people tend to be leftists. However, I wouldn't call leftists to account for their actions, or impute the beliefs of a relatively small group on to a whole ideology.

But what would be your opinion of a leftist with a bully pulpit who endorses, explicitly or implicitly, violent animal liberation? Would you not then be inclined to apportion some, not all, of the blame on those who endorsed these actions when some benighted soul goes out and torches an animal research center?

Nope. The individual made their own choice. Further, maligning everyone who speaks against animal cruelty would just be silly.

And what are you referring to with extreme population control? What leftist is calling for this? What manifesto of a madman has been discovered after he blew up a pediatric ward? Really, I honestly have no idea what you mean here.

Yeah, dumb example. Anti-vaccers then. Really, there's no shortage of crazy in the world.

What we're doing is not to indict all of right wing ideology by the actions and words of some right wingers. If you'll read between the lines of many of us who disagree with you, you may find we're more sympathetic to the right wing than you suspect. We are saying that those who spew vitriol, racism and hatred are at least partially responsible for the atrocious acts they inspire. If you can agree to that much at least, maybe we can move on to discuss how we determine responsibility, what types of fanatics are likely to be stirred up by what type of rhetoric, I dunno, something, freakin' anything that shows maybe we've made some progress.

I don't agree at all. The responsibility for an action falls squarely on the individual who commits the action. In the case of state-run media where no other message can possibly be heard, you would have a point. However, with all the perspectives and sources of information available in the US claiming one viewpoint is responsible for people who commit certain actions is silly.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Nope. The individual made their own choice. Further, maligning everyone who speaks against animal cruelty would just be silly.

No one said anything about maligning everyone who speaks against animal cruelty. Read more carefully:

But what would be your opinion of a leftist with a bully pulpit who endorses, explicitly or implicitly, violent animal liberation? Would you not then be inclined to apportion some, not all, of the blame on those who endorsed these actions when some benighted soul goes out and torches an animal research center?

I refer here, quite clearly, to those who endorse violence. Those who facilitate the action of blowing up an animal research center. People who speak from a position of power and authority, to whom people listen and get their news. What would be your opinion of such people? Both before and after the type of violence they endorse occurs?

And anti-vaxers, to run with another example that is perfectly reasonable to attribute a generally left-wing affiliation. What do you think of people who specifically endorse children not receiving life saving vaccines? Particularly of the ilk who ran a fraudulent study to give wings to the idea? Parents choose not to get their children vaccines. Free choice. Influenced by willful deception. Is Andrew Wakefield blameless?

I don't agree at all. The responsibility for an action falls squarely on the individual who commits the action. In the case of state-run media where no other message can possibly be heard, you would have a point. However, with all the perspectives and sources of information available in the US claiming one viewpoint is responsible for people who commit certain actions is silly.

No one, Fucking NO ONE, is claiming that one viewpoint is responsible, in whole or in part, for anyone's actions. We refer to specific people who endorse specific kinds of actions; namely violent actions. We then note the gross disparity in the past few decades of this level of rhetoric originating on the right. Mountains of examples have been provided, a tiny trickle of counter-examples have been provided. None of this indicts right-wing ideology as an ideology. It indicts tactics taken by those on the right over the past few decades. So get it through your thick skull, mate, we all think, "claiming one viewpoint is responsible for people who commit certain actions is silly". That's why no one here is saying that.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No one, Fucking NO ONE, is claiming that one viewpoint is responsible, in whole or in part, for anyone's actions. We refer to specific people who endorse specific kinds of actions; namely violent actions. We then note the gross disparity in the past few decades of this level of rhetoric originating on the right. Mountains of examples have been provided, a tiny trickle of counter-examples have been provided. None of this indicts right-wing ideology as an ideology. It indicts tactics taken by those on the right over the past few decades. So get it through your thick skull, mate, we all think, "claiming one viewpoint is responsible for people who commit certain actions is silly". That's why no one here is saying that.

Creating that sort of strawman is how the less extreme right-wingers provide cover for their violent counterparts. It is the same thing that the less extremist theists do when they circle the wagons around their more fundamentalist fellow believers and claim that criticism of religious extremism is a personal attack against all people of faith. Religion can be indicted because it is wrong, which is how we can criticize it without demonizing or calling for the extermination of theists. What passes for right-wing ideology is also demonstrably wrong, which is why it is open to the same criticism. Since what the far right is fighting against is often their own positions from just a few years ago now that a centrist Democrat is offering those ideas as a compromise, they have no choice but to level dishonest accusations against a nonexistent leftist threat and make violent threats. Otherwise, they couldn't get anyone to listen to their ideas, and they'd be rightly relegated to the discount rack of history where those ideas belong.

Notice also the confirmation of what I was saying before, that a self-described "conservative" wants to divorce violent actions from any and every context and connection to other actions. It ignores reality and human nature, and relies on a model for the world which is demonstrably false.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Nope. The individual made their own choice. Further, maligning everyone who speaks against animal cruelty would just be silly.

No one said anything about maligning everyone who speaks against animal cruelty. Read more carefully:

Please note the post right after yours where Joe indites everyone on the right. This is the kind of broad-brush approach that I'm rejecting.

I refer here, quite clearly, to those who endorse violence. Those who facilitate the action of blowing up an animal research center. People who speak from a position of power and authority, to whom people listen and get their news. What would be your opinion of such people? Both before and after the type of violence they endorse occurs?

My standard is the call to action. "I believe in X as strong as I possibly can" gets a complete pass. "I think X will result in Y" gets a pass, at most I'd roll my eyes. "In my opinion Y will inevitably happen if we do/don't do X" imputes no responsibility on the speaker, but it's a subpar rhetorical technique. "I have facts that say X causes Y" imputes responsibility if those facts don't meet a reasonable standard of proof. "I think X is great, wink wink" or "I hate X, wink wink", where X is something objectionable; that depends a lot on culture. In America, it passes because we're not expected to interpret this as instructions as some other cultures do. "We should do X" gets a pass as long as X isn't a specific threat. "We should do X, at Time and Place, here's some instructions" imputes responsibility.

And anti-vaxers, to run with another example that is perfectly reasonable to attribute a generally left-wing affiliation. What do you think of people who specifically endorse children not receiving life saving vaccines? Particularly of the ilk who ran a fraudulent study to give wings to the idea? Parents choose not to get their children vaccines. Free choice. Influenced by willful deception. Is Andrew Wakefield blameless?

If someone commits fraud, there's definite responsibility. Someone who repeats a fraud only has responsibility if they know that the information they're spreading is wrong. Willful deception as to specific facts, yes, definitely carries responsibility with it.

However, general statements of opinion, of ideology, and speculation do not. And, let's be honest, that's what the bulk of the rhetoric being objected to contains.

I don't agree at all. The responsibility for an action falls squarely on the individual who commits the action. In the case of state-run media where no other message can possibly be heard, you would have a point. However, with all the perspectives and sources of information available in the US claiming one viewpoint is responsible for people who commit certain actions is silly.

No one, Fucking NO ONE, is claiming that one viewpoint is responsible, in whole or in part, for anyone's actions. We refer to specific people who endorse specific kinds of actions; namely violent actions.

The devil made me do it, you say? If the devil is Charles Manson, sure. If the devil is Glenn Beck making bombastic statements; no.

We then note the gross disparity in the past few decades of this level of rhetoric originating on the right. Mountains of examples have been provided, a tiny trickle of counter-examples have been provided.

There's a video somewhere in the UFO thread about anomaly seeking; it applies here too. Taken as a whole, the number of violent crimes has dropped significantly in the last 20 years; by almost 50% in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Violent rhetoric is, demonstrably, not making our culture more violent. Comparing lists of anomalous behavior demonstrates precisely nothing about the whole impact of social phenomenon.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Thank goodness, an isolated incident averted:

Police in Arlington, MA this week seized a "large amount" of weapons and ammunition from local businessman Travis Corcoran after he wrote a blog post threatening U.S. lawmakers in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). In a post on his blog (which has since been removed) titled "1 down and 534 to go" , 1 referring to Giffords and 534 referring to the rest of the House of Representatives and the Senate , Corcoran applauded the shooting of Giffords and justified the assassination of lawmakers because he argued the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limits. "It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone," he wrote in the post.

Yeah, completely unrelated to all the other violent politically-motivated terrorists who say the exact same things... some ideas must be so obvious that they are formed from whole cloth by each one of these people individually, and none of them heard it from anyone else or were influenced by anyone else either. People live in a complete vacuum where they are solely responsible for their own actions and the ideas of "society" and "culture" are meaningless.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Well some liberal threw a pie at a conservative so let's call it even.