Actions vs. rhetoric
So, it seems that the prevailing narrative coming from those on the right is that it is only rhetoric that inspires people to commit violence--never the actions or rhetoric of those targeted. The party that used to espouse "personal responsibility" apparently takes none. Self-reflection is something only required of others.
But, if your actions are heinous, why would it take someone else's rhetorical words to inspire violence against you?
It is endlessly frustrating that the awful actions of people are being dismissed or downplayed as the cause of violence against them in a blatant--but it has to be said successful--attempt to deflect the blame back on to anyone merely pointing out how awful said actions are.
So, if you are an awful person doing awful things and I point it out; then someone does something bad to you--it's my fault? Your actions had nothing to do with it?
What we are being told, then, is that awful people must be allowed to do their awful things without us calling it out because otherwise we will put said awful people in danger.
But you know what? Maybe--just maybe--the awful people and awful actions speak pretty loudly on their own....
Violence of any kind--political or otherwise--is never acceptable--I want to be clear on that. Neither is rhetoric that calls for actual violence. It should not happen. But I would be willing to bet that a lack of rhetoric would not stop the actions of those disturbed and motivated enough to commit it. Conversely, not doing awful things would probably cut down on the danger.
As Confucius said some 500 years BCE: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
= new reply since forum marked as read
