It isn't inherently more contemptible, it's just
more dangerous given circumstances as they are in the US today.
11 people haven't been killed by liberals worried about possible Republican traitors. AFAIK one guy shot at some Republicans without killing any of them.
Note also that 11 people is
just one example of far-right terrorism driven by the right's deliberate fanning of racist paranoia for votes.
https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/
The left has complete cultural power, and the right has complete political power. The crazies on both sides are going to aim where they see the other side as dominant (for the left, it is the increasingly multicultural and sexually liberal civil society, and for the right, branches of government).
This does temporarily make the right-wingers more dangerous, yes, but I still don't see why that makes what Trump has done
worse. Is he supposed to anticipate how his crazies will react as opposed to the other side's crazies before making any kind of political statement? Or is he supposed to know the proportions of crazies attached to each particular issue before taking a position on it?
So, that probably burned your fresh start.
It was worth exactly what I thought it was.
You completely misrepresented his point.
Whatever you say, dude.
Then you play that standard snotty arrogance card that is always flying out of whatever hand you are dealt, as if the obviously intentional misrepresentation were just a "failure to understand" on your part that is obviously due to the point having not been explained clearly, when in fact it has been repeatedly. And you finish with the typical snide comment about "liberals" that lumps everyone you disagree with into one easily dismissed mass.
His incoherent post ended with a declaration that I was simply unfit to discuss the issue with, so yeah, that tends to bring out my snideness.
No, it's your refusal to acknowledge a point so that the conversation can move forward. I honestly think of you as intelligent enough that, if I have to repeat myself, I wonder if it is intentional on your part.
I switch from thinking that you failed to understand my point, to thinking that you will just not acknowledge it, so that the conversation can advance.
What is your point? I've applied the principle of charity well enough. I can apply it even more thoroughly if you want:
El_Machinae:
"If words are inspiring crazy people to violence, that is not a surprise. The real concern kicks in when the more normal person is inspired to commit violence."
Here you claim that rhetoric that causes non-violent people to kill others is inherently worse than rhetoric which gets already-unstable people to do the same thing. This seems perfectly true to me (people have been
convicted of crimes against humanity for it).
El_Machinae:
"You then analyze whether the rhetoric is more contemptible or if the underlying concerns have gotten worse."
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but it seems like you're saying that the inherent 'contemptibility' of the speech should also be a factor. Which, again, is something I agree with.
El_Machinae:
"Anti-semite, anti-muslim, and anti-immigrant hate crimes have all risen during Trump's tenure. The two explanations are that the underlying threat has gotten worse and that the rhetoric has gotten more contemptible."
Did everyone get this? You assert that (A) the rhetoric has gotten more contemptible (with no argument whatsoever) (B) that the 'underlying concerns' have gotten worse - a useless statement, given that you never defined what that meant in the first place, and (C) completely dropped the point about him inspiring more normal, as opposed to unstable, people to acts of violence. Do you see why all of this makes me think you aren't rational arguer?
(Also, I don't blame Bernie Sanders for the Scalise shooter. I brought him up to see if you would apply the same standard to Democrats. The 'Republicans are traitors' claim has been pushed by the mainstream of the Democratic Party.)
