ADVERTISEMENT

Paris attack caused by Right-Wing speech

22*43*51

HB Legend
Nov 23, 2008
16,430
4,299
113
According to this author.

In a still developing situation, the city of Paris, France, is under attack by terrorists armed with guns and explosives. Many dozens of people have been killed. A still undetermined number of people have been wounded. The terrorists took dozens of hostages in a concert hall. French police and military forces have been deployed. There is mayhem and blood in the streets of Paris.

President Obama has correctly described this day’s horrific events as “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share.”

Terrorism is politically motivated violence against a vulnerable population that is designed to intimidate, sow fear, create panic and alter public policy.

Terrorism is serious business that kills people, breaks bodies and alters lives.

It is not a game.

In the United States, the right-wing media and movement conservatives have for decades consistently used eliminationist and other violent rhetoric to describe liberals, progressives and other people with whom they disagree. As was seen in the recent attacks on a Charleston-area black church, and other violence by right-wing anti-government militias, such rhetoric does not float in the ether of the public discourse, harmless and unacknowledged. No, it does in fact lead to action.

In recent months, the right-wing media has used language such as
“terrorism” and “violent,” or that the latter is “targeting police for murder” to describe the Black Lives Matter movement. Such bombastic and ugly screeds–which are wholly unfounded, with no basis in empirical reality–have also been used by right-wing opinion leaders to describe the African-American students who are fighting against racism at Yale and the University of Missouri.

There are many examples of this type of incendiary rhetoric from conservatives and their sympathizers.

A few examples.

Bill O’Reilly has declared “war” on Black Lives Matter and in doing so described them as a type of contemporary Ku Klux Klan (KKK). At its height of popularity in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the KKK was America’s largest terrorist organization. It was responsible for the murders of thousands of African-Americans. In contrast to the KKK, Black Lives Matter is a group dedicated to protecting the human rights of all people against state-sponsored violence and police thuggery and murder.

Ben Carson, in his designated role as a black conservative whose primary purpose is to disparage black Americans and to excuse-make for white racism,
recently told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that the black and brown students who are advocating for their full rights and respect at Yale University are ushering in “anarchy” and “this is just raw emotion and people just being manipulated, I think in many of these cases, by outside forces who wish to create disturbances.”

Likewise,
Fox News has repeatedly described the student protesters at Yale and Missouri using the same language. O’Reilly has even gone so far as to suggest that Black Lives Matter and the students who are protesting racist treatment are part of a cabal that is engaging in “fascist” behavior and “running wild” against white people. Trumping his allusions to “fascism,” on his October 22, 2015 episode of his TV show, Bill O’Reilly even made the absurd claim that Black Lives Matter is akin to the “Nazis.”

These are implicit threats and overtures to violence as racial authoritarian fascists are a clear and present danger to democracy and freedom. Thus, they must be eliminated by any means necessary.

Other critics of the student activists at Yale University and Missouri such as
The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf have even made the absurd claim that so-called “safe spaces” are being “weaponized” by student activists in order to deny free speech.

Terrorism has been practiced in the United States. It was used by a Herrenvolk white settler society built upon the genocide of First Nations peoples and the enslavement of African-Americans to control, intimidate, and murder non-whites. The decades of Jim and Jane Crow white supremacy were also a form of State-sponsored terrorism as well. Political violence continues in the present where in too many of America’s communities, police and other security forces kill with impunity, force the black and brown poor into a state of “custodial citizenship”, and act in a thuggish and illegal way towards the country’s most vulnerable citizens.
Real terrorists have killed people in the streets of Paris. The right-wing media needs to take note of that fact and moderate their rhetoric and abusive language accordingly.

Given the American right-wing’s casual habit of using violent language to describe their foes, and to gin up fear and anxiety among the movement conservative base, the Fox News’ right-wing echo chamber and its elites should be ashamed given the death and destruction that terrorism actually reaps in practice.


http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/and...the_rights_violent_language_toward_activists/
 
I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything in the copy and paste that states the Paris attack was caused by RW speech.

Unless you are referring to ISIS as right wing, which would likely be correct.
 
Drone strikes - nope, can't be a reason.

Air strikes - not a reason here

Right wing speech - this is definitely the most reasonable one. There is a YouTube video to prove it.

Add an occupation, civilian causalties, and. disrupted economies to the not a reason list.
 
I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything in the copy and paste that states the Paris attack was caused by RW speech.

Unless you are referring to ISIS as right wing, which would likely be correct.

Title of the article...

And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right’s violent language toward activists

There is an attempt at causation by the author there.
 
Title of the article...

And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right’s violent language toward activists

There is an attempt at causation by the author there.

Real terror unfolds in Paris. Perhaps this will convince the right to tone down their incessant violent rhetoric.

I saw nothing in the article that tried to support causation. The articles basic premise was similar to saying cut down on the whole ware on xmas language as we are in actual real wars and they are nothing like the "war" on xmas.
 
I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything in the copy and paste that states the Paris attack was caused by RW speech.

Unless you are referring to ISIS as right wing, which would likely be correct.
ISIS is more like the Liberal left in that they care zero about life.
 
Real terror unfolds in Paris. Perhaps this will convince the right to tone down their incessant violent rhetoric.

I saw nothing in the article that tried to support causation. The articles basic premise was similar to saying cut down on the whole ware on xmas language as we are in actual real wars and they are nothing like the "war" on xmas.

It's more calls for double standards, special treatment and censure.

Only activists and the Left can use violent language.

If the right uses violent language towards activists... Well, that's just plain mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexMichFan
It's more calls for double standards, special treatment and censure.

Only activists and the Left can use violent language.

If the right uses violent language towards activists... Well, that's just plain mean.

So you admit you are completely wrong in everything you claimed above. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
So you admit you are completely wrong in everything you claimed above. Thanks.

No. The author is trying to show causations between the Right's speech and terrorism.

These people would all be alive if the Right chose their words better.
 
So you admit you are completely wrong in everything you claimed above. Thanks.

So, you agree with this statement?

"These are implicit threats and overtures to violence as racial authoritarian fascists are a clear and present danger to democracy and freedom. Thus, they must be eliminated by any means necessary."

 
So, you agree with this statement?

"These are implicit threats and overtures to violence as racial authoritarian fascists are a clear and present danger to democracy and freedom. Thus, they must be eliminated by any means necessary."

Not really. But that has nothing to do with Paris. We can probably just move on from this argument. Either you know you are wrong and are just trolling or you don't know you are wrong and there is no point in trying to help you understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Not really. But that has nothing to do with Paris. We can probably just move on from this argument. Either you know you are wrong and are just trolling or you don't know you are wrong and there is no point in trying to help you understand.

I just figured that the author graduated from the University of Missouri's Journalism School.
 
Not really. But that has nothing to do with Paris. We can probably just move on from this argument. Either you know you are wrong and are just trolling or you don't know you are wrong and there is no point in trying to help you understand.

and "Not Really"

Is that tacit support for restricted speech? "by any means necessary"?
 
Title should be changed to "started by youtube video" that fits Hillary much better.
 
I'm not I see the problem with a country that has a 30 hour work week and mandates 3 months of vacay!:confused:
 
They're cons, they think about life just like you do.

DLetSkZ.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT