Whatever happened to the wise advice our parent passed down to us about teasing and name calling? Weren’t we all taught some version of “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”?
The crocodile tears from the Washington crowd about “overheated rhetoric” leading to violence is almost beyond parody. The politicians, pundits, and journalists pushing this meme are worse than soccer players and field goal kickers who drop to the ground and feign injury in hopes of getting a cheap penalty call.
When Obama talked about bringing a gun to a knife fight during the 2008 campaign, Republicans looked like fools for acting like they were on the verge of fainting. Likewise, when Sarah Palin (or prominent Democrats) use cross-hairs or bulls-eyes to indicate races they are targeting, it is silly for people to act like this means a death threat.
Grow up people.
Obviously, if any politicians or their staffers actually instigate criminal behavior, that’s a different story, but that’s almost inconceivable. I hold politicians in very low regard, and I’m perfectly comfortable in assuming lies, corruption, and other bad things. Even I would be shocked, however, to find a lawmaker willing to deliberately provoke violence.
[…] derivation of “More Obama Humor.” But then I realized some statist – filled with faux outrage – might attack me for making a threat against the President. […]
[…] me if I’m not upset. As I’ve already explained, it is pathetic and demeaning for people to act like field goal kickers and soccer players, falling […]
[…] Comments RSS […]
Actually I’m less worried about the politicians, because just like soccer, that’s the way the game is played – as pitiful as it is to watch.
What I’m more concerned about is the number of spectators who seem to actually believe it. Political Correctness is getting so ingrained into modern culture talking about it is like cracking a joke about a wrestling match being fake, and having the crowd look at you like you’re nuts.
The word “hate”, and more recently “bullying”, have been redacted over the last decade to mean something they never meant before, (in the latter case watered-down and broadened while still retaining the connotation of physical violence), and predictably we’re seeing those new meanings being employed against speech and opinions held that aren’t even specifically directed at other individuals. A society that truly valued Free Speech and understood the dangers of declaring thought crimes would have welcomed the Internet with open arms. It’s pretty hard for anyone to punch you in the nose over the Internet, and that should justify greater freedom of expression, not less.
Yet as has previously been the case, those wishing to stifle speech know it must be framed as presenting a clear and present danger. So absurd in this case that the justifications are by necessity beyond ludicrous. The “victim” apparently has no control over their own reaction, and the words practically cause tangible injury in and of themselves.
Make no mistake, a large percentage of young people are growing up believing this stuff.