Here’s something I’m not finding persuasive of anything:
CAPTION:
A vandalized sign outside the office of Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., is shown Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009 in Smyrna, Ga. Scott had a contentious community meeting on health care last week. Scott, who is black, said the swastika is the latest example of what he believes is an increasingly hateful and racist debate over reforming health care.
According to the article, Scott claims that the above sign “should serve as a reminder for people to tone down their rhetoric.”
Even though we do not know who did it, or why.
So why should it serve — and how could it serve — as a reminder of anything other than the fact that spraypainting swastikas and other acts of vandalism are offensive, wrong, and criminal acts? What has it to do with the “tone” of anyone’s “rhetoric” any more than a broken window would have anything to do with the tone of rhetoric? Whether a rhetorical tone is implicated (and whose “tone” that is) would depend on whether it was intended as rhetoric, and the only way to know that would be to know who painted it, and why.
So what’s the idea with this rhetorical tone argument? Should I be less opposed to socialized health care simply because some unknown idiot * in another state spraypainted a swastika on a sign? What’s for me to tone down, and why should I?
Anyone — literally anyone — can take a can of spray paint and paint two lines in the shape of a swastika.
You’d almost think the goal was to implicate those who didn’t.
* Yeah, I know. I shouldn’t go assuming he’s an idiot. Whoever did it might be quite intelligent.
Comments
4 responses to “My Brooks Brothers look is already too toned down for swastikas!”
There is an appreciable chance that it was done by someone on the left to attempt to make the right look bad.
See: http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2009/08/12/obama-is-hitler/
Never mind, I see you have the same story further down. See what I get for not reading the whole thing before I post?
a false-flag attack by one of Scott’s supporters, or one of his staffers, in order to put his political opponents in a more negative light is I think a definite possibility, as well as the possibility that some true far-right wingnut did it.
We don’t know until we know who did it, do we?
But, it does give yet another opportunity to point out the simple historical fact that “Nazi” is a German abbreviation for “National Socialist.”
Let’s assume that whoever did this was a right-winger. SO WHAT? after the last 8 years, no one on the left has any right to object. Sauce, goose, gander, etc.
And how, exactly is calling a congressman a Nazi racist?