Yes, but the vast majority is coming from the right.

Yes, but there is a significant imbalance in where violent, gun-based rhetoric comes from. Neither side is squeaky clean, but one side has a clear lead in the race.

Out of curiosity, if Sarah Palin had quoted The Untouchables similarly, would you give her the same pass?

To me, the responsibility rhetoric has here is much like the responsibility the manufacturers of a mild carcinogen have. In the general population, 15 people out of a thousand will get earlobe cancer. Among users of Product X, 17 people will get earlobe cancer.

I use Product X and get earlobe cancer. How responsible is Product X for this? Full responsibility? 12% responsibility? No responsibility? The cancer either was or wasn't caused by Product X but it is impossible to know which.

The problem with blaming rhetoric for the actions of crazy people is that there's no predicting crazy. Simple oppositional language could trigger a crazy person to violence. So yes, it is possible that the general tone provided this crazy person with a target but I don't really care since anything could have provided this crazy person with a target.

I care when generally rational people are moved to violence by rhetoric.

I don't think anyone's placing direct blame in a straight causational line, Alex. But some are alleging that pundits have known for quite a while, and are certainly now put on notice, that their insanity-appealing rhetoric will, sooner or later, but undoubtedly, appeal to the insane to carry out the violence they directly and specifically promote with such rhetoric.

Others, such as I (for example), believe many of these pundits are indeed purposeful and knowing Stochastic Terrorists of the bin Laden ilk, who are conducting a planned reign of terrorism behind the cowardice of plausible deniability.

If it was used in the same way, yes. The problem is that Palin and the others have made careers out of inciting violence and hatred. Obama made one comment. The right would have you think that this makes him just as bad as they are. Sorry, I don't buy it.

And that's fine. And essentially irrelevant to the discussion of individual incidents, especially when the connection is made on essentially zero information about what media and messages this particular person had been consuming.

It looks as stupid, to me, as blaming a specific hurricane on global warming or using a specific snow storm to argue against it.

But outside the context of a specific event with no specific chain of causality I am all in favor of the discussion. Product X should be reformulated to not cause those two extra cancers if at all possible, but that doesn't mean I get to say it caused my cancer.

Really? Could you provide me the list of violence that Palin has incited? Ideally something that doesn't just rely on post hoc ergo proptor hoc reasoning.

So, can we say something else? That without equating all examples of needlessly violent speech, Obama's use of that quote also contributed to a needlessly violent rhetorical tone and, as with all of them, it would have been better had he not said it?

"Yeah, but when we do it it isn't as bad so it isn't worth commenting on" is just as lame (and here I am creating an equivalency) as "But you do it do so us doing it isn't worth commenting on."

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has a timeline with incidents and their context between June 2008 and now.

Do we get to call this a trend yet?

Well, two things come to mind off the top of my head; the cross-hairs poster and the time during the presidential campaign when she called for Obama's assasination. If you want, I can pull together a longer list later when I have time.

Sorry. No. Wrong. While there has been some violent rhetoric from the fringe left, it is in no way equal to the constant barrage coming from major players on the right - not just fringe right, mind you, but from their leaders. Yes, Obama made one ill-advised comment once, but it in no way makes him as bad as Palin, O'Reilly, Rush, Bachman, et al. There is no equivilency. Period.

No, that's a list of violent imagery. I'm asking about a list of violence she incited, which you said she has built her career on. By that criteria, Eli Roth has also built his career on inciting violence.



Edited this part, originally too mean. But, since in replying you show no sign of having actually read what I wrote, I guess there's no point in posting further.