There are 4 mentions of 'traitor' in the diary itself; 1 mention of thug; 2 mentions of 'enemy'.
Now to cheer you up, there are a few people posting in the comments to nyceve that those words are over the top and should be reigned in. I'm only listing a few.
Nyceve to semblence:
Greekesque:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/18/10476/7251/122#c122We do have to ask ourselves: What if rightwing radio hosts used these terms?
Traitors, public enemies--we would take those words as incitement to violence.
These Congresscritters do deserve harsh scrutiny and criticism, but we should be very, very careful in how we express our outrage so that it does not become counterproductive.
nyceve to Greekesque:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/18/10476/7251/443#c443No one, certainly not me, is advocating violence.
People are dying due to official indifference.
I am sorry but on this issue, I won't apologize or take it back.
And BTW, the diary and the title was vetted by seriously top level people. They all felt it was 100% appropriate.
God loves goats:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/18/10476/7251/220#c220I saw the term "traitor" ...
used on some some right wing web sites to describe the cap and trade bill and those Republicans who voted for it. My first thought was "fringe"
I know it probably just me, but when I see the term "traitor", I think of someone who gives aid to a foreign enemy. When we use it to describe debates about internal policy, we kind of fall into a Godwin like territory where the terms used in the argument becomes part of the argument and dilutes the message.
Believe me nyceve, I love what you do here. You are unparalleled in your devotion to this cause. I quote you all the time. I don't believe this helps though. I'm sorry, but whenever I see "traitor" in any title of an essay on policy, my first thought is "fringe" and I have a hard time getting past the title.
Alan F:
sgbean:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/18/10476/7251/58#c58The tone: traitors, thugs, villains, and threats
Look, I'm pissed off that we've got people in our own party who aren't helping us pass crucially important legislation. I've been unemployed and uninsured since March 2nd, so believe me when I say that an agenda that's centered around jobs and health care is vitally important to me.
But isn't the tone in this diary exactly the sort of thing we typically call out the Freepers on?
Isn't calling our representatives "traitors" and "villains" the sort of hyperbole we've been decrying in right wing pundits, especially recently?
Be angry. Be livid, in fact. Shame them, indeed. Hound them with cameras and unending questions that they won't answer, and show those videos to their constituents. Call their offices as often as you can, and encourage others to do the same. But drop the vilifying.
They're wrong on issues, wrong for their constituents, and wrong for America. But they're not devils. They're not evil.
And last that I'm posting nyc to sgbean and back:
sgbean, once again, on this issue . . .
we must be harsh. This diary is meant to be harsh.
People are dying.
~~~
sgbean to nyceve...
There's a fine line between harsh and vilifying
and you're walking it.
"This issue is important, people are dying" is the exact same logic people like Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly use to defend their screed. It's the same defense people vilifying abortion doctors use.
It's got no place in our discourse.
Anyways, my point in this is to say that it takes comments like you made, Tay or like these other people did to help people see a glimpse that the rhetoric has gotten as shameful as those we oppose.
I still think there are too many corrupt and compassionateless people in Congress, and I'm incapable of giving them any positive motivations to their actions; however, I can see where once you see people like you, semblance, greekesque, sgbean (etc) say that a line is being crossed, you can go through and look at the diary and comments through new eyes. You can see comments take on the same harsh tone. And you can see how even though nyceve isn't advocating violence, it does up the ante in the rhetoric and people become oblivious to that impact.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. It opened my eyes. I think a few of my own comments could be close to that line, and one crossed it. (I had just watched the video with the Ross tuning out the questions and ignoring Stark.) So that means I will take this as a learning opportunity and I will be much more careful in the future.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore