This blog is closed. For more recent content, visit Chris Clarke's new site Coyote Crossing.
Creek Running North
January 11, 2006
Because David Neiwert shouldn't have to do all the heavy lifting
Those of you who don't read Orcinus ought to: David is one of the best bloggers around covering the rise of the right wing, and he's done some singularly valuable work documenting the increase in eliminationist rhetoric coming from surprisingly mainstream sources.
Take a look at a couple of David's posts on the subject and then check out this item I found in a high-end CafePress store.
If you'd like to let CafePress know how you feel about their profiting from calls for extermination of "liberals," you can do so by way of this page.
I suggest a firm yet polite tone. The design - and much of the other stuff in this particular store - clearly violates CafePress' content guidelines. I'm betting they'll take action.
Posted by Chris Clarke at January 11, 2006 08:44 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
0 blog(s) linking to this post:
Done. Thanks for the heads up. Let's hope CafePress listens.Posted by: Space Kitty at January 11, 2006 09:49 AM
Get over it, it's plainly meant in jest. We Libs need to have a thicker skin. There are many Liberal sites that do the same thing and they are also CafePress stores. See below:
http://cafepress.com/aroseisarosePosted by: Jason at January 11, 2006 10:14 AM
Jay Taber at Skookum blogs regularly on white supremacist hate groups and his written extensively on them. Two books detailing his PNW experiences and thoughts are, "Blind Spots" and "Shadow War".
Arvin Hill also blogs on hate groups. And a posting on a protest against the Minutemen, in which he involved, brought the attention of the white supremacist individual who maintains the "OverThrow Blog" the official blog of Overthrow.com. The comment was, "And you wonder why we have to put you in camps."
David at Orcinus participated recently in the conference “On The Border: The Return of the Militias” at which Jay Taber was also a presenter.Posted by: Idyllopus at January 11, 2006 10:21 AM
Jason, ordinarily I'd agree, but let's just say Neiwert provides a pretty effective rebuttal in his work.
I don't think it's reci[procal, in any event. For instance, I looked through your (rather nice) store, and I must have missed your items containing jests about killing your opponents.Posted by: Chris Clarke at January 11, 2006 10:26 AM
I looked through your (rather nice) store, and I must have missed your items containing jests about killing your opponents.
I agree, chris. liberals and progressives rarely call for the death of conservatives, although who's to say we might not be better off if they were eliminated?
seriously, it's because we liberals rarely fight back in real and effective ways that we've lost so many important battles with republicans in recent years. as exhibit numero uno, I offer up the series of unfortunate events that culminated in bush's "election" in 2000.
Thanks for calling our attention to this, Chris. Horrifying! I've sent an email.
And, Jason, if you can find me a liberal CafePress.com site that engages in similar rhetoric with regard to conservatives, please let me know. I will happily send CafePress an email about that store, too.
I've been compiling a list of the genuinely eliminationist rhetoric from Republicans with a platform, either political or media. Bloggers have (generally) been excluded. David Neiwert's most recent finds have not yet been added, but the list is I've been compiling a list of the genuinely eliminationist rhetoric from Republicans with a platform, either political or media. Bloggers have (generally) been excluded, mostly because the list would get too long, and they don't (again, generally) have sufficient reach / influence for me to include them as real Republican leaders. David Neiwert's most recent finds have not yet been added, but the list is here.Posted by: paperwight at January 11, 2006 04:44 PM
Hmmm... Repeated previews seem to do interesting things. Well, the gist is there, anyway.Posted by: paperwight at January 11, 2006 05:39 PM
Usually the moment a lefty, liberal, or just plain democrat fights back the rightwingers scream foul. They talk about how nasty we are, how full of hate, and usually scream and bitch about how many laws we're breaking by just not standing there and letting them spit on us.
That's the worst thing about the internet.
It's given cowards who would never act this way in public a chance to be brave and tough around their likeminded peers.
Personally, I can't rest easy about eliminationist rhetoric, and it's not because I have a thin skin. Or, more to the point, if my skin is thin, it's because it's been abraded over the years by this kind of crap. The thing that gets me is the _mainstreaming_ of this kind of hatred; it used to be that as a lefty I was just odd or strange or "idealistic" (hah) -- someone to ignore or make fun of, but that's about it.
This kind of hate speech -- and it IS hate speech -- would never be considered acceptable if it were applied to more "traditional" "minority" groups (minority in quotes because some, like women, are not really such). Imagine a Jewish person, or an African-American, or a woman, in those cross-hairs, and you'll see what I mean.
Yet now it's not only acceptable in a number of fairly mainstream circles, it's _un_acceptable to criticize it. That is a REALLY dangerous state of affairs, when violence directed against an entire group of people is not only condoned but defended. I don't like that sort of thing when the gun is aimed at other people; I _really_ don't like it when it's aimed at ME.
(I also have quibbles with the notion that Democrat = liberal, but that's another rant.)Posted by: Rana at January 12, 2006 01:39 PM
Why don't you post this Lib site?
or this one:
What's wrong? No Balls?Posted by: edgar at January 12, 2006 08:21 PM
What's wrong, Edgar? No brains?
Aside from the name of the second site - which is reprehensible - the two sites to which you failed to link successfully do not seem to exhort people to shoot their political opponents.
I'm not sure how much more clearly that can be spelled out. The effort's probably doomed to failure, given that Bush loyalists seem to think advocating torture, assassinations, and thuggery directed at people left of Barry Goldwater is acceptable, while criticising either Bush or his cronies is an atrocity.
Go practice your critical thinking for a while. Then we'll talk.Posted by: Chris Clarke at January 12, 2006 08:35 PM
To be fair, Chris, the second of the two sites has the following products: "Die Republican Skum" and "I [skull & crossbones] Bush."
These are, with a very wide definition of same, examples of eliminationist rhetoric.
In the world of fair and balanced these meager offerings are more than a match for the reams and reams of crap Neiwert has chronicled.Posted by: Auguste at January 12, 2006 08:59 PM
I'm afraid your deft sarcasm will go right over the head of our little friend here, Auguste.
Which is not surprising considering where he's got it jammed.Posted by: Chris Clarke at January 12, 2006 09:05 PM
I think your point--that eliminationist rhetoric is far more common on the right than on the left--still stands, Chris. And thanks for bringing RightWingStuff.com to our attention so we can point it out to the CafePress.com people.
However, I made a promise and I followed through on it, because such hate speech is unacceptable. And, to me, liberal hate speech is, if anything, *more* unacceptable because it undermines ideas and policies that I believe are absolutely fundamental to repairing what's wrong with our country.
Dear CafePress Representative,
A couple of days ago, I emailed you about a CafePress site specializing in products with a conservative political bent, some of which advocated violence against liberals, and asked you to consider whether it was in line with your content guidelines.
Today, I am writing to ask you to also examine a liberal CafePress site, "http://www.cafepress.com/killrepublicans" for the same reasons. Some of their products also seem to advocate violence against people on the basis of their political leanings.
Edgar, thank you for bringing www.cafepress.com/killrepublicans to my attention so I could protest it, as well. I cannot be said to have "balls" in any physiological sense, but your implication that liberals are hypocrites has, I hope, been quashed.Posted by: Ancrene Wiseass at January 12, 2006 09:23 PM
AW, you are terrific! you too, chris. the pathetic state of what passes for political discussion just now almost makes me wonder where the teacher is, with his/her whistle and a detention slip.
except -- when rhetoric about killing people for certain opinions is part of the mix, it just isn't funny. how many times has similar talk turned to actual bloodshed in the home? on the street? in schools and workplaces? legal abortion providers have been stalked, threatened, killed -- in part inspired by this kind of talk. in earlier times -- not that long ago -- extrajudicial lynchings were horrifyingly common, in part fueled by hate speech directed at an entire group of citizens.
when the official line of thought from the white house is that dissenters are traitors, the situation is pretty damned bad already. a huge portion of the country has been painted -- unjustifiably -- with a not-very-subtle accusation of criminally betraying our country. the accusation sweeps in people of all stripes, from devoted veterens to government employees to taxpaying PTA members to little league coaches, and on and on.
do death threats need to be part of the public discussion? i believe in free speech, but i don't believe in passing on and assisting offensive speech, especially hate speech. it's one thing if a lone jackass wants to put a target poster on his own wall, and another thing entirely if a third-party commercial site with a policy banning hate speech is asked to spread the word.
oh, and edgar -- back to the schoolyard. would you mind very much refraining from adolescent sexist insults? they don't tend to advance your point.Posted by: kathy a at January 13, 2006 03:01 PM
Eliminationist, hell, I'm used to that by now. What really makes me cringe, and in a totally bipartisan way, is flat-out bad design. Most of that stuff is pure crap.Posted by: keir at January 16, 2006 11:51 PM
Ok, so what is permissible on our side? And at what point are we engaging in "eliminationist rhetoric" anyway? This whole train of thought here is worrisome. Many of the quotes linked call liberals traitors who give aid and comfort to the enemy. Many of them call for imprisoning us, censoring us, killing us, attacking us, throwing us out of the country. One quote compares us to dogs who pee on furniture and need to be nuetured. Various others describe us as the enemy. Well, for the most part, we don't say any of that about these reactionary psychos who are running the country into the ground. But personally, I do refer to them as the enemy, because that is what they are, let's face it. By the way, is calling Repugs Repugs or "reactionary psychos running the country into the ground" eliminationist? If so, where is this slippery slope headed anyway?
Go to any self-respecting liberal blog out there and look at the invective hurled at these ultrarightwing freaks. Is that "hate speech" or "eliminationist"? If so, what of it? Fight fire with fire. The whole problem with the Woosy Demowimp Sissy Party is they won't stand up and fight like men and they spend most of their time accomodating rightwing fanatics. The Republicans fight like bastards, dirty as Hell, and they win. Democrats are wimpy, roll over, play dead, cringe, cry, hide in the corner, and lose, lose, lose. A 7 yr old girl fights ten times harder than a yellow bellied pussillanimous Democratic politician. What say we play their game?Posted by: Robert Lindsay at January 17, 2006 10:10 PM
"Eliminationist" means advocating the extermination of one's opponents. I don't seea whole lot of posters at DKos calling for all Republicans to be shot.Posted by: Chris Clarke at January 17, 2006 10:26 PM
Robert, I have to say I'm a little appalled by:
1) Your assumption that mounting an effective campaign against opponents has to mean calling them lots of schoolyard names
2) Your disturbing characterization of such behavior as "fighting like men" rather than "like a 7-year-old girl."
I absolutely agree that the right wing has been infinitely more successful than those of us further left in persuading the public. And I agree that we need to do a better job of fighting back.
But it seems to me that we ought to be able to do that pretty well by making sure more people hear the *truth* in a clear and straightforward way. The truth about much of the right-wing agenda is far uglier than any name we could call its practitioners, after all.
And I don't think I need to point out that the rhetoric I'm citing in item #2 is sexist (though I just did, anyway). It also seems inaccurate, insofar as 7-year-olds are more likely to employ the strategies you endorse here than mature adults.Posted by: Ancrene Wiseass at January 18, 2006 02:53 PM