Jonah Goldberg column: "So what if Robert Lewis Dear was inspired by the Planned Parenthood videos?"
Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote an article this morning on which I felt the need to comment, published by the Los Angeles Times and entitled, "Was Robert Lewis Dear inspired by the Planned Parenthood videos? So what if he was?" Yes, that's the actual title. It only gets better.
Goldberg's article starts with this:
"'No more baby parts.'
As of this writing, that statement by Robert Lewis Dear is the only evidence that the 'Planned Parenthood shooter' in Colorado Springs, Colo., was motivated by anti-abortion rhetoric.
Dear's comment came amid a rambling interview, and law enforcement officials have not said what his motivations were."
Well, that's more evidence than conservatives have of the controversial Planned Parenthood videos proving the family planning organization sells baby's parts, of climate change being a hoax, or of gun regulation having no impact on gun violence. If the shooter said "No more baby parts" at a movie theater, a mall, or a church, chances are we'd have no idea what he was talking about and would just take him for crazy. However, given the fact he killed three people at a Planned Parenthood facility, the quote holds a bit more weight. Also, why does Mr. Goldberg feel the need to placed "Planned Parenthood shooter" in parentheses? Would he do this if Mr. Dear had shot and killed people at the before-mentioned places ("the movie theater shooter," "the mall shooter," "the church shooter")? I don't think so. Anyway, please continue...
"That didn't stop abortion-rights supporters, led by Planned Parenthood's formidable PR operation, from placing the shooting at the feet of abortion opponents, including Republican presidential candidates and particularly the producers of the undercover videos about Planned Parenthood and the sale of fetal organs."
Psst, those videos were proven to be heavily edited and therefore misleading. Just thought I'd point that out... Go on...
"Pretty much the only things we know for sure are that three innocent people were killed and that Dear is, by most people's standards, not right in the head.
"Dear is a recluse fond of living off the grid - literally, as in without electricity - who apparently scared pretty much anyone he came in contact with. It is unlikely but not impossible that he was partly inspired by anti-abortion or anti-Obama rhetoric or by the undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress."
Here we go again... Why is it when a Muslim is guilty of murder, conservative columnists like Goldberg have no problems calling him a terrorist and part of a larger problem in the Muslim community; when an African-American is guilty of murder, they have no problems calling him a thug and part of a larger problem in the African-American community; but if it's a white (conservative) Christian, they tend to refer to these individuals as lone wolves, mentally-deranged, and an aberration, not part of a trend? Why the double-standard? Why not be consistent with every demographic and simply say that each person should be treated as an individual and not as representative of an entire group? Anyway, you were saying, Mr. Double-Standard...?
"But let's assume Dear was inspired by those videos. My sincere question is, 'So what?'"
Oh boy, this should be good...
"I understand that many abortion rights activists don't want abortion rights to be up for debate, hence the effort to cast any opponents of unlimited abortion as not just wrong, but as anti-woman, anti-health and in some sense in league with someone like Dear: an alleged domestic terrorist.
But that's not only ridiculous on the merits, it's not how the 1st Amendment works."
Going the hyperbolic route, I see... It appears Mr. Goldberg has decided to cast all "pro-choice" individuals as being anti-free speech and decided to place words in their mouths, claiming even if a person believes in the most minor of abortion regulations, a pro-choice individual will call them an anti-feminist nazi. That's news to me, but I'm curious where Mr. Fallacy goes from here...
"I agree entirely that leaders of the pro-life movement and other social conservatives should condemn violence and do what they can, within reason, to discourage anyone from killing in their cause's name."
Well, that's nice. I'm thinking Mr. Goldberg's actual calling is writing Hallmark cards...
"That still leaves the problem of those outside reason. The guy who shot John Lennon was said to be inspired by 'The Catcher in the Rye.' The Aurora shooter who slaughtered a dozen people at a showing of 'The Dark Night Rises' was not only obsessed with a particular Batman film series, he told police he was the Joker, a character in it. The Tucson shooter, a deeply mentally ill man, was obsessed with the lunatic conspiracy film 'Zeitgeist.' The deranged Newtown, Conn., shooter loved video games."
Psst, that's The Dark Knight Rises, but please continue. I see where you're going here...
"The blame still resides with these killers. Millions of people loved 'The Catcher in the Rye,' 'The Dark Knight Rises' movies and video games - and they don't kill people because they're sane, reasonable, people. But that misses the point. What if the killers' actions could be blamed on those things? What if it were true that if Mark David Chapman had never read 'The Catcher in the Rye,' he would never have shot Lennon? What's the follow-through for that premise? Should we hold all speech - artistic and political - hostage to what sick or evil people might do? How would that work?"
I see he already learned from his earlier Batman-affiliated typo, so that's good. Goldberg is right to a certain extent here. The killers are the ones who should receive the brunt of the blame. Also, it'd be ridiculous to start censoring certain works of art and entertainment because they may have potentially triggered a screw which was already loose. I completely agree with that. However, these are works of fiction and it's critically important at an early age to be able to decipher fiction from reality. The individuals responsible for the Planned Parenthood cover-up videos and the angry rhetoric at the family planning organization's expense claimed they were spouting facts, inciting anger in the process, and making it more likely some individual would believe their lies and act on them. Please continue...
"Not all mass killers fit the technical definitions of mental illness. But I would say that murder is by definition unreasonable; it follows that unreasonable people will find unreasonable excuses to kill.
As many conservatives have pointed out, Floyd Corkins, who attacked the Family Research Council in 2012, wanted to kill as many people as he could because he detested the organization's opposition to gay marriage. Craig Stephens Hicks, an atheist who killed three Muslims in North Carolina in February, was supposedly a big fan of Rachel Maddow and Bill Nye the Science Guy. It is just as grotesque to blame Maddow or Nye for those crimes as it is to try to smear the average abortion opponent with the Colorado shooting."
Once again, like he did with his previous two paragraphs, Mr. Goldberg goes the false equivalence route. Yes, it would be incredibly ridiculous to blame Craig Stephens Hicks' murders on Rachel Maddow or Bill Nye, but once again, did Ms. Maddow or Mr. Nye knowingly lie and shout angry rhetoric about Muslims which angered Mr. Hicks to a point where he felt the need to do something about it? No. There's a stark difference between a murderer being uninspired for the killings by celebrities he's a fan of, in this case Rachel Maddow and Bill Nye, and a murderer who was lied to and angrily told about the evils of an organization before attacking it. Anyway, go on...
"In criminal, civil and contract law, we have a reasonable person standard - how would a reasonable person react to a set of circumstances? Speech should be held to just as generous a standard. If a car catches fire when it is driven one mile over the speed limit, a reasonable person would probably think the manufacturer was culpable. If a car is deliberately driven into a crowd, the driver, not the carmaker is to blame.
Which of these scenarios matches what happened in Colorado Springs?"
Neither actually. Continuing with this analogy, it'd be more accurate to say the incident in Colorado Springs would be like many individuals telling the driver about the evil people in a crowd, spreading lies about them, and subtlely claiming they should be punished, before the driver deliberately drives the car into the crowd. Yes, ultimately, the driver is to blame, but as unintentional as it may have been, he received a little push along the way, and maybe those very individuals should learn to tone their rhetoric down just a bit in the future...
UPDATE: Since I posted this blog, it has been reported, courtesy of Mr. Dear's ex-wife, Pamela Ross, that the Colorado Springs shooter is conservative, religious, anti-abortion, and has targeted Planned Parenthood before, which makes it increasingly possible that the misleading cover-up videos and angry rhetoric helped provide fuel to his fire.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-planned-parenthood-killer-20151201-column.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alleged-planned-parenthood-gunman-targeted-agency-article-1.2452270
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/former-wife-says-planned-parenthood-shooter-is-conservative-religious-and-anti-abortion/
Goldberg's article starts with this:
"'No more baby parts.'
As of this writing, that statement by Robert Lewis Dear is the only evidence that the 'Planned Parenthood shooter' in Colorado Springs, Colo., was motivated by anti-abortion rhetoric.
Dear's comment came amid a rambling interview, and law enforcement officials have not said what his motivations were."
Well, that's more evidence than conservatives have of the controversial Planned Parenthood videos proving the family planning organization sells baby's parts, of climate change being a hoax, or of gun regulation having no impact on gun violence. If the shooter said "No more baby parts" at a movie theater, a mall, or a church, chances are we'd have no idea what he was talking about and would just take him for crazy. However, given the fact he killed three people at a Planned Parenthood facility, the quote holds a bit more weight. Also, why does Mr. Goldberg feel the need to placed "Planned Parenthood shooter" in parentheses? Would he do this if Mr. Dear had shot and killed people at the before-mentioned places ("the movie theater shooter," "the mall shooter," "the church shooter")? I don't think so. Anyway, please continue...
"That didn't stop abortion-rights supporters, led by Planned Parenthood's formidable PR operation, from placing the shooting at the feet of abortion opponents, including Republican presidential candidates and particularly the producers of the undercover videos about Planned Parenthood and the sale of fetal organs."
Psst, those videos were proven to be heavily edited and therefore misleading. Just thought I'd point that out... Go on...
"Pretty much the only things we know for sure are that three innocent people were killed and that Dear is, by most people's standards, not right in the head.
"Dear is a recluse fond of living off the grid - literally, as in without electricity - who apparently scared pretty much anyone he came in contact with. It is unlikely but not impossible that he was partly inspired by anti-abortion or anti-Obama rhetoric or by the undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress."
Here we go again... Why is it when a Muslim is guilty of murder, conservative columnists like Goldberg have no problems calling him a terrorist and part of a larger problem in the Muslim community; when an African-American is guilty of murder, they have no problems calling him a thug and part of a larger problem in the African-American community; but if it's a white (conservative) Christian, they tend to refer to these individuals as lone wolves, mentally-deranged, and an aberration, not part of a trend? Why the double-standard? Why not be consistent with every demographic and simply say that each person should be treated as an individual and not as representative of an entire group? Anyway, you were saying, Mr. Double-Standard...?
"But let's assume Dear was inspired by those videos. My sincere question is, 'So what?'"
Oh boy, this should be good...
"I understand that many abortion rights activists don't want abortion rights to be up for debate, hence the effort to cast any opponents of unlimited abortion as not just wrong, but as anti-woman, anti-health and in some sense in league with someone like Dear: an alleged domestic terrorist.
But that's not only ridiculous on the merits, it's not how the 1st Amendment works."
Going the hyperbolic route, I see... It appears Mr. Goldberg has decided to cast all "pro-choice" individuals as being anti-free speech and decided to place words in their mouths, claiming even if a person believes in the most minor of abortion regulations, a pro-choice individual will call them an anti-feminist nazi. That's news to me, but I'm curious where Mr. Fallacy goes from here...
"I agree entirely that leaders of the pro-life movement and other social conservatives should condemn violence and do what they can, within reason, to discourage anyone from killing in their cause's name."
Well, that's nice. I'm thinking Mr. Goldberg's actual calling is writing Hallmark cards...
"That still leaves the problem of those outside reason. The guy who shot John Lennon was said to be inspired by 'The Catcher in the Rye.' The Aurora shooter who slaughtered a dozen people at a showing of 'The Dark Night Rises' was not only obsessed with a particular Batman film series, he told police he was the Joker, a character in it. The Tucson shooter, a deeply mentally ill man, was obsessed with the lunatic conspiracy film 'Zeitgeist.' The deranged Newtown, Conn., shooter loved video games."
Psst, that's The Dark Knight Rises, but please continue. I see where you're going here...
"The blame still resides with these killers. Millions of people loved 'The Catcher in the Rye,' 'The Dark Knight Rises' movies and video games - and they don't kill people because they're sane, reasonable, people. But that misses the point. What if the killers' actions could be blamed on those things? What if it were true that if Mark David Chapman had never read 'The Catcher in the Rye,' he would never have shot Lennon? What's the follow-through for that premise? Should we hold all speech - artistic and political - hostage to what sick or evil people might do? How would that work?"
I see he already learned from his earlier Batman-affiliated typo, so that's good. Goldberg is right to a certain extent here. The killers are the ones who should receive the brunt of the blame. Also, it'd be ridiculous to start censoring certain works of art and entertainment because they may have potentially triggered a screw which was already loose. I completely agree with that. However, these are works of fiction and it's critically important at an early age to be able to decipher fiction from reality. The individuals responsible for the Planned Parenthood cover-up videos and the angry rhetoric at the family planning organization's expense claimed they were spouting facts, inciting anger in the process, and making it more likely some individual would believe their lies and act on them. Please continue...
"Not all mass killers fit the technical definitions of mental illness. But I would say that murder is by definition unreasonable; it follows that unreasonable people will find unreasonable excuses to kill.
As many conservatives have pointed out, Floyd Corkins, who attacked the Family Research Council in 2012, wanted to kill as many people as he could because he detested the organization's opposition to gay marriage. Craig Stephens Hicks, an atheist who killed three Muslims in North Carolina in February, was supposedly a big fan of Rachel Maddow and Bill Nye the Science Guy. It is just as grotesque to blame Maddow or Nye for those crimes as it is to try to smear the average abortion opponent with the Colorado shooting."
Once again, like he did with his previous two paragraphs, Mr. Goldberg goes the false equivalence route. Yes, it would be incredibly ridiculous to blame Craig Stephens Hicks' murders on Rachel Maddow or Bill Nye, but once again, did Ms. Maddow or Mr. Nye knowingly lie and shout angry rhetoric about Muslims which angered Mr. Hicks to a point where he felt the need to do something about it? No. There's a stark difference between a murderer being uninspired for the killings by celebrities he's a fan of, in this case Rachel Maddow and Bill Nye, and a murderer who was lied to and angrily told about the evils of an organization before attacking it. Anyway, go on...
"In criminal, civil and contract law, we have a reasonable person standard - how would a reasonable person react to a set of circumstances? Speech should be held to just as generous a standard. If a car catches fire when it is driven one mile over the speed limit, a reasonable person would probably think the manufacturer was culpable. If a car is deliberately driven into a crowd, the driver, not the carmaker is to blame.
Which of these scenarios matches what happened in Colorado Springs?"
Neither actually. Continuing with this analogy, it'd be more accurate to say the incident in Colorado Springs would be like many individuals telling the driver about the evil people in a crowd, spreading lies about them, and subtlely claiming they should be punished, before the driver deliberately drives the car into the crowd. Yes, ultimately, the driver is to blame, but as unintentional as it may have been, he received a little push along the way, and maybe those very individuals should learn to tone their rhetoric down just a bit in the future...
UPDATE: Since I posted this blog, it has been reported, courtesy of Mr. Dear's ex-wife, Pamela Ross, that the Colorado Springs shooter is conservative, religious, anti-abortion, and has targeted Planned Parenthood before, which makes it increasingly possible that the misleading cover-up videos and angry rhetoric helped provide fuel to his fire.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-planned-parenthood-killer-20151201-column.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alleged-planned-parenthood-gunman-targeted-agency-article-1.2452270
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/former-wife-says-planned-parenthood-shooter-is-conservative-religious-and-anti-abortion/
Comments
Post a Comment