First Amendment

Condemning Extreme Rhetoric, NYT Columnist Says Conservative Pundits Incite Murder

Jim Rutenberg's indictment of "the Incitement Industry" charges right-wing provocateurs with complicity in violence.

|

www.DeathofaNationMovie.com

Donald Trump calls journalists who fail to fawn over him "the enemy of the people." New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg calls right-wing commentators who say things that offend him "the Incitement Industry." While the president's critics hear echoes of Stalin and Mao in his rhetoric, I hear echoes of Brandenburg v. Ohio in Rutenberg's.

Brandenburg is the 1969 case in which the Supreme Court held that it's unconstitutional to punish people for advocating illegal activity or the use of force "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Rutenberg seems to be implying that hyperbolic, outlandish, and inaccurate statements by conservative provocateurs such as Jeanine Pirro, Dinesh D'Souza, and Ann Coulter meet that test, meaning that they could be punished or censored without violating the First Amendment.

Am I reading too much into Rutenberg's column? You tell me:

[D'Souza's movie Death of a Nation] makes the case that the Nazi platform was similar to that of today's Democratic Party. Prominent among its villains is George Soros, who was allegedly sent a pipe bomb by Cesar Sayoc Jr., who also is accused of sending similar packages to Hillary Clinton and [Barack] Obama….

The Incitement Industry can also be a driving force at Fox News, which has lately featured guests who have asserted without evidence that Mr. Soros financed the migrant caravan making its slow way toward the southern border of the United States. Someone who shared that view was the man charged with killing 11 congregants during a hate-driven shooting rampage at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

The implication is clear enough that Rutenberg felt a need to add a disclaimer:

Violent acts, it should be noted, are the responsibility of those who commit them, and the perpetrators have various ideological motivations. But the grist for emotionally disturbed or just plain violent people has never seemed so readily available.

It's possible, of course, to believe that criminals should be held responsible for their own actions while also believing that people who incite others to violence, as Rutenberg suggests that D'Souza and Fox News have done, should be punished as well. Rutenberg stops short of saying that, instead advocating self-restraint by media gatekeepers:

Where is the line between falsehoods that may incite violence and good, old-fashioned American political hyperbole? And should book publishers and entertainment companies be more careful about the products they send out into the world in a tense sociopolitical atmosphere?

So no, Rutenberg is not saying the government should censor people like D'Souza, Pirro, and Coulter or arrest them for participating in the Incitement Industry. But neither did Trump say the journalists he condemns as enemies of the people should be executed. In both cases, the epithet is troubling because of the history to which it alludes. While it's sadly plausible that Trump was (at least initially) ignorant of the relevant history, it would be hard for a professional chronicler of the media to claim the same excuse.

None of the commentary Rutenberg cites would actually meet the Brandenburg test, which requires an intent to incite violence and a likelihood of succeeding right away. But Rutenberg, who says the Incitement Industry promoted the ideas that "provided a backdrop for mass murder in Pittsburgh and the recent pipe-bomb mailings to Barack Obama, the Clintons, George Soros and CNN," is charging his political opponents with complicity in homicidal violence. That's a pretty neat trick in a column bemoaning extreme rhetoric.

NEXT: Trump Takes Full Ownership of His Anti-immigrant Nativism with Latest Ad

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. They can’t both be the beginning, one must be the middle.

      1. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning…

    2. It’s so detached it’s like post modern performance art or something. All the idiotic glamour selfies by people who couldn’t give their own cat a mercy killing calling for someone to kill the President. And Twitter not just allows it but, presumably, finds some value in it.

    3. “Donald Trump calls journalists who fail to fawn over him “the enemy of the people.””

      No, Trump calls journalists who routinely lie the enemy of the people, which they are.

      1. It’s amazing how conservatives are such babies about the press. “The enemy of the people”? Really? The right wing media and Trump himself sling far more lies–remember birtherism?

        1. I’m sorry. I thought it was expected of politicians to lie and distort and for the press to be objective and truthful. Thank you for admitting you believe the media pushes politics instead.

        2. Yet they/you completely ignore the long history of Democratic leadership who have actually advocated violence against the opposition. The mainstream media is self admittedly liberal/leftist/progressive. When you have a media sector of which 85% is dedicated to pushing the agenda of one party’s ideology they are not really fulfilling the credo of a free and unencumbered press. They are simply a propaganda arm of that particular party. The fact they don’t admit it makes them dishonest and their intent presumably nefarious. So for those of us who are not part of the lemming-like mobs who swarm around progressives they are in fact our enemies. Enemies of critical thinking.

  1. Is there anything more extreme that claiming the President won office because the Russians fixed the elections and is now being blackmailed into effectively being a foreign agent as President?

    I don’t read Ann Coulter but I have never heard of her saying anything that extreme or potentially damaging to the country if everyone really beleived it. Yet, the major media spent months claiming just that daily.

      1. Of course he wore his socks. Of course.

      2. That site is awesome, BTW.

        1. Clickhole is where The Onion seems to have shifted all of their talent.

    1. Is there anything more extreme that claiming the President won office because the Russians fixed the elections and is now being blackmailed into effectively being a foreign agent as President?

      NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION.

      I mean, sure, it’s extremely plausible, based on the public evidence we have. Hopefully Mueller will conclude that Trump was merely a dupe who happened to be conveniently situated when Putin executed his audacious plan to divide America against itself.

      You seem to forget that Trump himself was preparing to complain that the election was illegitimate, if he ended up losing. That was his closing pitch for his entire campaign – the whole thing is rigged! How extreme would you say that was, hm?

      1. “I mean, sure, it’s extremely plausible, based on the public evidence we have”

        List it.

        1. Suck my dick.

          1. Will you list it then? Or still no?

            1. I’m not going to play rope-a-dope. You dipshits posit any number of implausible and factually-deficient things in the comments, I’m not going to feel compelled to do any kind of homework to engage you.

              You can either follow the news and remember what you’ve read, or you can ignore what you find inconvenient and believe whatever you like. I can see which side you tend to fall on.

              1. So you don’t have anything. Gotcha.

                1. Do you normally require information to be spoonfed to you?

                  1. I normally require people who make claims to support them and not instantly devolve into parody.

                  2. SimonP|11.1.18 @ 3:13PM|#
                    “Do you normally require information to be spoonfed to you?”

                    No, but when some fucking lefty ignoramus makes an idiotic claim, we really like to see him called on his bullshit.

        2. “List it.”

          Trumps repeated lies about not meeting with Russians are pretty suspicious. Trump Tower meeting and the bungled attempt to cover it up by lying to the press and the American people.

          Roger Stone and Wikileaks is looking bad for him, but may not connect to Trump. Russia-linked Wikileaks releasing hacked emails 30 minutes after pussy-grabbing tape.

          Manafort. Flynn’s Russian connections. The blackwater guy meeting in the Seychelles.

          Altering the GOP platform to conform to Russian wishes, weakening NATO, denying Russian hacking.

          But maybe those are all coincidences.

          1. Again progressives/socialists are excellent at regurgitating talking points and making assertions based on what they have been spoon fed. (e.g. comments like “it is widely reported”,or “it is public evidence” relying heavily on the old adage of repeating lies often enough. You know this when you call them on it and their defense is to either deflect or claim they don’t need to do your work for you. The truth is nothing that is “public evidence” has given any indication that Trump’s staff met with the Russians in order to subvert the elections.. We know that emails of both the DNC and the old Clinton airbag John Podesta were obtained most likely through simple phishing. On the other hand there is proof that an unsubstantiated dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign became an important source of FISA warrant that led to Obama’s Justice Department to go after the Trump campaign.

      2. There is no evidence of it and it is only claimed to give hateful retards like you talking points.

        1. Takes one to know one, genius.

          1. You have no evidence that it is true. Indeed, even the Democrats are not claiming it in the run up to the midterms.

            Media Matters needs to get better trolls because you are pathetic.

            1. Provide evidence that it didn’t happen then. Heh, gotcha.

          2. Are you 12?

      3. I agree Simon, there was collusion in the 2016 election. Unfortunately it was all between the DNC/Hillary, Fusion GPS and Steele/KGB linked russians.

        Or would you like to go to the multimillion dollar campaign finance violations orchestrated by the DNC & Hillary.

      4. Liberalism. The belief that 1 million in random Facebook ads was more effective than over 1 billion in campaign spending across Facebook, television, radio, and ground campaigns.

    2. “Russians fixed the elections” is just birtherism for Democrats.

      1. Plus, if Russians have the power to fix our elections, the US has bigger problems than Trump being POTUS. The progs aren’t thinking through the implications of their conspiracy theories.

        1. In the summer of 2016 Obama straight up said no one could fix our elections. Certainly made me feel better.

    3. Yes, there are lots of things that are more extreme.

  2. I blame Trump for reigniting Twitter. It was almost dead.

    1. Good point, he’ll have to take some responsibility. Sad!

    2. That is a very fair criticism of Trump. But in Twitter’s defense, without it we would not be reminded daily just how stupid journalists are. So there is that.

  3. NYT Columnist Says Conservative Pundits Incite Murder

    – brought to you by the producers of “Republicans are Nazis“, and “Everyone should punch Nazis“, and in association with the executives behind “Get Them Where They Sleep

    1. And before that, The Assassination Of George Dubya Bush.

      The projection is just….staggering.

      Progressives are violent cowards.

      Every time I read stupid bull shit like this I’m reminded of the losers in Dostoevsky’s Devils.

      That’s who they are.

      1. Aren’t you guys currently jerking off about droning an immigrant caravan? Weird.

  4. Did they meld Lincoln and Trump together because both have used controversial executive orders that resulted in awful results?

    1. They just took a random picture from LC’s deviantart page.

      1. This is probably the best burn I’ve read on these comment boards from the past five years. Well done, BUCS!

    2. It’s a photo Donaham Truncoln, the result of a genetic experiment designed to produce the winningest leader the world has ever known.

      1. Take note, kids. This is how you Hit.

      2. Unfortunately, the experimental theory had a couple of holes in it.

      3. Hot Rod Lincoln?

    3. I’m genuinely perplexed by the symbolism/connection they’re trying to draw, since I thought the controlling narrative amongst the Trumptards was that the Civil War was fought over state sovereignty and ultimately resulted in the imposition of expanded federal power over the states. Yes, Lincoln is broadly respected and honored in American public discourse, but any real attention to his legacy ought to counsel against trying to make Trump out to be another Lincoln.

      I suppose I shouldn’t exactly be surprised – this is the way of propagandists, after all.

      1. SimonP|11.1.18 @ 2:56PM|#
        “I’m genuinely perplexed…”

        That;’s because you’re a fucking ingoramus.


      2. the Civil War was fought over state sovereignty and ultimately resulted in the imposition of expanded federal power over the states.

        Considering that this has been a motif in American politics since we were just a few colonies, I think it’s safe to say it was primarily about slavery but also about sovereignty. As a matter of fact, I’m fairly confident that’s essentially everyone’s take on the Civil War outside of fringe nut jobs who are selling ‘historical fiction’ novels.

      3. It’s really not hard to understand. Lincoln has been reinvented modernly as the “Jesus” to our Abrahamic Founders. The Founders (Abraham) made the original covenant, but the impurity of man (slavery) made the coming of Abraham Lincoln (Jesus) necessary.

        His coming purged saved the nation from slavery (original sin) and any future “saving” of the nation is almost assuredly going to make reference to him. Regardless of who the new savior is, Lincoln will be reinvented as our Moses, and that new savior as Jesus, especially if it comes from the right. Lincoln will be reinvented as having been the man who brought the tablets down, instituting the law, and that new savior will be made to be the perfection of it.

      4. The Leftist frequently says “I don’t understand …” in regards to other people.

        He thinks that his ignorance is their failing.

        The cognitive dissonance stems from trying to reconcile Leftist narratives with reality. They are incompatible.

        And yet, so many on Reason still profess to be no closer to the Right than to the Left.

  5. …the Nazi platform was similar to that of today’s Democratic Party.

    You know who else is similar to a Democrat?

    1. Reason magazine?

    2. Republicans?

    3. That guy who they wear on their t-shirts?

  6. The NYT and others can go fuck right off. They have been stoking this crap for years, and have piece after piece calling half of americans trashy, racist, sexist, vile human beings.

    The same types of people who say republicans will kill millions of people since they don’t support their healthcare plan, then when a crazy bernie sanders supporter tries to mass murder republican representatives, shouting ‘this is for healthcare’, they cover it for all of 5 minutes.

    The same type of people who want to ruin your life over a baseless allegation when you were 17 years ago, then say you are sexist if you don’t bow before their maoist struggle sessions….

    The same people who tell you to harass people at gas stations, yell at people in restaurants, etc…

    The same people that want to use the state to push you down because of crap you didn’t do 100+ years ago (hell even my SJW roommate says Asian parents need to ‘get over’ affirmative action)…

    Yeah, they can go fuck right off

    1. Gosh, it’s sure a good thing Scalise took a bullet for you Trumptards, ‘else you’d have nothing to bitch about when the right-wing crazies start acting out on the dog whistling they’ve been hearing for three years, at least.

      So, just so we’re clear, we’re talking about two kinds of “inciting rhetoric” here:

      – Republicans spend years trying to repeal Obamacare and, when they fail to do so despite controlling all branches of the federal government, begin a campaign to undermine its efficacy, while claiming to support its most popular provisions. A guy shoots up a baseball game because he’s so upset about it.

      – Trump spends years villainizing the media as the “enemy of the people,” singling out CNN, attacking his various political opponents as sub-human, empathizing with white nationalists (to the extent of embracing the term “nationalist” to describe himself), encouraging his supporters to attack protesters against him (by promising to pay their legal expenses), endorsing a politician who physically attacked a journalist, and propagating a anti-semitic right-wing conspiracy theory about the caravans of migrants traveling through central America. A guy shoots up a synagogue, another one mails a bunch of pipe bombs.

      Do you see how one of these is a response to real events, and the other is a response to inciting rhetoric?

      1. “Gosh, it’s sure a good thing Scalise took a bullet for you Trumptards”

        Stay classy.

        1. I’m not the one citing his attack in a constant barrage of whataboutism apparently intended to normalize politically-motivated violence.

          1. Actually you’re doing much worse than that.

            1. Hurting your precious sensibilities, apparently.

              1. SimonP|11.1.18 @ 2:59PM|#
                “Hurting your precious sensibilities, apparently.”

                No, proving your stupidity, you fucking ignoramus.

      2. Let’s reframe that.

        – Republicans spend years trying to repeal Obamacare but do not actually do so. Along the way, Democrats and a large majority of the popular media attack Republicans as sub-human, immoral, evil, etc and encourage their own supporters to oppose the Republicans at any cost. They either endorsed, encouraged or attempted to justify anyone who attacked any Republican politician. A guy listens to all that and shoots up a baseball game.

        – Trump spends years in a love/hate relationship with the media (with both parties making LOADS of money off the drama), and attacks his political opponents to pretty much exactly the same degree as politicians of both parties have all the way back to Jackson. A guy mails a bunch of pipe bombs, none of which actually had a chance of really hurting their alleged targets. According to the FBI, they did not even have triggering devices.

        – Trump has strongly favorable relations with Israel. He also has Jewish family members. Anti-Israeli rhetoric (in the form of the BDS movement) is primarily associated with those who also oppose Trump. An anti-Semite shoots up a synagogue.

        So, yeah, I do see a difference in these responses – but it’s not the difference you seem to think.

        1. Trump spends years in a love/hate relationship with the media (with both parties making LOADS of money off the drama), and attacks his political opponents to pretty much exactly the same degree as politicians of both parties have all the way back to Jackson.

          The GOP hasn’t had a President / Candidate willing to go after the media like this in my memory. That said, I think you can look at Trump’s behavior and interaction with the media as a form of Kayfabe. Trump is a showman, and he puts on a show at all times. He doesn’t break character.

      3. Hey dumb ass, the guy shot up a syagogue not a newpaper. It takes a special level of stupid to think Trump calling CNN fake news incites some lunatic to shoot up a synagogue.

        1. He’s referring to the Maryland incident, which had nothing to do with trump or his rhetoric but a prior beef with the news outlet. Simon is what we call an idiot.

      4. Nothing? Attempted stabbings, multiple shootings of offices, arson and vandalism, multiple assaults, ricin threats, ricin attacks… And that isn’t including antifa it BAMN. All from this year.

      5. – Trump spends years villainizing the media as the “enemy of the people,”
        Really? Until he ran, and won, the media loved Trump. They couldn’t interview him often enough. They saturated his ass with coverage after he got in the race.

        encouraging his supporters to attack protesters against him
        How dare he suggest that supporters fight back against unhinged leftist mobs?

        propagating a anti-semitic right-wing conspiracy theory about the caravans of migrants traveling through central America
        I am impressed at how quickly the progtards embraced the “anti-Semitic” meme regarding Soros, because what else could an NY lifer with a daughter who converted to Judaism, and supported relocating of the Israeli embassy be.

        Please keep saying stupid things.

      6. “Dog Whistle”: noun

        “Any word uttered by a person who disagrees with me”

      7. If you’re hearing a dog whistle, you’re the racist piece of shit.

      8. Just an FYI, Simon.

        The guy who shot up the synagogue hated Trump and was a proponent of BDS.

        And there weren’t any alarm clock/bombs* mailed to the enemy of the people–i.e. CNN–there were alarm clock/bombs mailed to prominent Trump critics whose address the bomber didn’t know. But he’d seen them on CNN.

        * Alarm clock/bombs– devices that are called ‘alarm clocks’ by the media when young Muslims parade them about but are referred to as bombs when it supports the narrative.

  7. “…should book publishers and entertainment companies be more careful about the products they send out into the world in a tense sociopolitical atmosphere?”

    Should media corporations be more responsible in what they publish? Remember, corporations aren’t people!

  8. Maybe having a President who called half the country “bitter clingers” and vowed to “fundementally transform” America created a lot of fear and division as people who were on the other end of his scorn concluded that transformation wasn’t going to work out so well for them?

    Neither Reason nor the NYT will consider that possibility.

    1. Nor do either of them really want to consider just why Trump was elected President. The very idea of a mass of Americans rising up and saying “they’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more” is rather off putting. Much easier to deride them as clingers and bigots [and whatever else Reverend Doofus says] and pretending they really don’t matter compared to the smart set who are born to rule.

      1. Yeah, a “mass of Americans,” but not as many as those who rose up and said, “Actually, things are going pretty well, I don’t know what you racist assholes are going on about.”

        I don’t know why you Trumptards keep flipping the script on this. Every time anyone mentions that more people voted for Hillary, you brag about how the electoral system doesn’t work that way. Fine, it doesn’t. But you can’t then turn around and say that Trump rode some popular mandate into office. He didn’t.

        His victory was the result of several factors, but this whole populist narrative you’re pushing is only a small part of it.

        1. I think the subtle point hidden within how our electoral system currently works is that if it *actually were* a nationwide popular vote mechanism for determining our president, people’s voting habits might actually change. Therefore, it’s hard to predict what a popular vote might have been for a past election. Maybe Trump wins the popular vote. Maybe Hillary wins by an even wider margin. Nobody knows.

        2. How many of those votes in Detroit were real? Why should I believe it’s any different in any area controlled by Democrats from district to State?

          Do you (or anyone) have any idea how motor voter registration is managed and controlled to keep ineligible people from voting? especially in places like California that tipped the balance.

        3. his victory was the result of more widespread support for him than Herself’s California, which is the bulk of the margin if not all of it.

        4. The populist narrative is orders of magnitude larger than your narratives of Russian collusion or racism run amok.

        5. Californians are the most ignorant of our population, we shouldn’t all have to suffer because an entire geographic region is too stupid to think for themselves. The lack of intellectual diversity should disqualify their power of sheer population, and that’s what the electoral college does.

        6. And one of the biggest factors in how Trump ran his campaign is he didn’t care at all about the popular vote, he cared about the electoral college.

          The game was chess and Trump played chess. Hilary seemed to think the game was checkers, and seems to have managed to convince her adherents that that was a good way to think.

  9. But the grist for emotionally disturbed or just plain violent people has never seemed so readily available.

    “Seemed.” Feelzecdotal evidence.

    The problem for these people isn’t that Fox News incites violence. The problem is that journalism has made its way past the traditional gatekeepers and is now spilling out into the streets unregulated. The correct-thinkers no longer has a lock on information dissemination. That’s what these people don’t like. The violence that may or may not have been triggered by it is incidental.

    1. Yup. They can no longer determine what information is given to the public and what information is withheld from the public for its own good. The bias in the media is 90% about refusing to report information that reflects poorly on leftist ideology.

      1. …and when they can’t deny it any more, they run a “conservatives pounce” article to emphasize that the real problem isn’t the bad thing some lefty did, but the fact that Trump and/or Republican Representative so-and-so made an inflammatory Tweet about it.

    2. I’ve studied media history, yes it’s an actual (if stupid) subject, and you’re not wrong.

  10. The lefts top 2 goals:

    Outlaw Guns
    Outlaw Badthink (aka up against the wall freethinkers)

    Hard to do the 2nd until you do the 1st

  11. I caught part of NPR’s roundtable yesterday morning featuring some guy named Nick Gillespie and a couple of ladies discussing Trump’s unprecedentedly (and unpresidentally) inflammatory rhetoric. One of the ladies repeatedly referred to “reification” and “dehumanizing language” and how this is a natural prelude to genocide, although she did stop short of mentioning any particular names or countries or eras in which the “othering” of some particular group of people led to an attempted genocide. Oddly, while she cited several examples of Trump using such language, she seems to have forgotten about or hadn’t noticed a certain group of people who openly talk about how wonderful it is to bash a fash or punch a Nazi or draw a crowd and get in their faces and push back on people and let them know they’re not welcome to appear in public or use threats of violence and public disorder as a heckler’s veto over other’s free speech rights. Or maybe she doesn’t consider that to be “dehumanizing language”. Would have been nice if Nick had asked her why she only seemed to be aware of Trump’s role in the divisiveness going on in this country. I mean, it’s like Hillary’s call for “unity” – all she has to do if she wants unity is to climb aboard the Trump train. But that’s not what she means by unity, she means unity like a cop means “stop resisting!”

    1. Punch a Nazi plus everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi.

    2. You are one of my favorite commenters, man. Keep it up! (Also, don’t stop posting)

    3. Nice analysis.

  12. Did the NYT ever apologize for becoming complicit in the Ukrainian starvation through its intentional silence and dissemination of Russian propaganda?

    1. No. And if they did, they would still try to tie it to Republicans.

  13. While it’s sadly plausible that Trump was (at least initially) ignorant of the relevant history, it would be hard for a professional chronicler of the media to claim the same excuse.

    I think you’ve got two cases of underestimation of ignorance going on there in that one sentence.

  14. Did we get these kinds of articles during the frequent race riots of Obama’s presidency?
    Kinda weird that we had literal race riots prior to, but not since, Trump’s presidency.

    1. Is Antifa a race? ’cause they all look the same to me…

  15. Put another way, if any of the commentary that Rutenburg cites actually did meet the Brandenburg test, then so would his own hyperbolic rants and tirades which contribute just as much to the “Incitement Industry”.

  16. Jacob, you are an idiot.

    The headline is just a false characterization of the op-ed you purport to be describing, and Brandenburg has no relevance whatsoever to the point that Rutenberg is making. Just because Brandenburg describes “incitement” as an exception from the First Amendment’s protections doesn’t mean that we are required to apply its definition to evaluate the rhetoric Rutenberg is describing.

    And, to be clear, what Rutenberg is describing is inciting rhetoric. It is, specifically, fake news that just-so-happens to invoke various anti-semitic and xenophobic tropes that resonate with the deeply ignorant citizens who comprise Trump’s enthusiastic base. Purveyors like FoxNews are pushing this kind of rhetoric and these kinds of “stories” precisely because the idiotic base eats it up – can’t get enough of it, really – and it is inevitable that, when you spend so much time pinning the apocalypse on Jews, immigrants, and notable media and political figures, someone will act on that. It’s called stochastic terrorism, and ISIS and al-Qaeda have been using the techniques for years.

    1. ” to invoke various anti-semitic and xenophobic tropes”

      You mean like the BDS movement?

      How are people actually calling Trump an anti-semite and expecting to be taken seriously?

      You might as well call him the Chupacabra, it’s not like you care about reality.

      1. You heard it here first, folks, Trump drinks the blood of goats. Innocent young goats.

        In other words, Trump drinks kids’ blood.

        1. Fake News – A guy who eats well done steaks isn’t drinking kids’ blood.

          1. He doesn’t drink…wine. Neither does Dracula.

            The case seems airtight to me.

            Or maybe you’re another Trumpista?

            1. All the Trump apologetics on this site.

              Trump isn’t a Nazi, he doesn’t drink the blood of goats in blasphemous Satanic rituals…if you love Trump so much why don’t you marry him?

              1. ‘Cuz I gotta get Melania (and possibly Ivanka) out of the way first!

      2. BDS isn’t anti-Semitic.

        How are people actually calling Trump an anti-semite and expecting to be taken seriously?

        Trump has embraced white nationalism, failed to denounce anti-Semitic supporters, propagated anti-Semitic memes and conspiracies, warned against an “globalist” conspiracy aimed at destroying national sovereignty, and provided political cover for down-ticket Republicans to go even further. Is Trump an anti-Semite? Well, who knows, and I don’t particularly care. His son-in-law is Jewish, which in Trumptard circles is his get-out-of-anti-Semitism card. Good for him.

        But I don’t know how anyone who refuses to acknowledge the anti-Semitic nature of the things he’s said, and pretends like American anti-Semites aren’t reading support into his message (despite their doing so patently on social media), can expect to be taken seriously.

        Look at it this way: If Trump wanted to fashion a message expressly disclaiming the support of anti-semitic white nationalists, he could do so, easily. He has the advisers who could tell him how to do it. But the most he’s ever done in that respect is begrudgingly read scripts off teleprompters and immediately contradict himself afterwards. What do you think the reasonable conclusion is, exactly?

        1. “BDS isn’t anti-Semitic.”

          Sure, they just hate Israel and Jews.

          Lol

          1. Maybe a little rough, but it’s all consensual…oh, I thought you said BDSM.

            1. The Auschwitz guard/inmate role play can get a bit edgy.

        2. “What do you think the reasonable conclusion is, exactly?”

          That you’re anti-semite covering for other anti-semites.

          1. He’s actually correct that not everyone involved in BDS is anti-Semitic.

            Some of them are just dupes.

        3. Provide examples of your claims.

          (I mean, I prefer globalist trade policy to nationalist trade policy! But “I oppose globalism” is not “I hate Jews”, it’s just rehashed economic Autarky claims; it’s bad economics, not Judenhasse.

          Show me specifics on the “memes and conspiracies” that aren’t on the level of “globalism always means Jews because shut up”?

          I don’t like the man, but I’ve never seen even a whiff of anti-Semitism from him.

          Or, honestly, even remote support for “white nationalism”, let alone this alleged “embrace”.

          It’ll be trivially easy to show and undeniable, right?)

          1. (Note: Yes, there are anti-Semites that will use “globalism” like the old “rootless cosmopolitan”, as shorthand for The Wicked Jews.

            But that’s only them; they can’t magically convert everyone who prefers non-globalist trade policies into anti-Semites just because they decided that it’s a Jewish conspiracy.)

          2. How about prominent bds supporters granting tacit approval for Hamas paying off murderers of jews, ie the support and paying for Palestinian people to stab Jews in Israel?

          3. What’s really funny is that if you grant “being pro nationalism and against globalism is just another way of saying you hate jews” and then examine it, you are basically admitting that the anti-semites are right, and a bunch of jews are controlling everything, and the only way to oppose that control is to rid yourself of the jews.

            That’s pretty messed up. I don’t think people like Simon really consider the logical conclusions that follow their own claims.

            1. He doesn’t consider it because he’s a fucking bigoted anti-semite.

        4. His family is Jewish and has been steadfast consistent in his support of Israel.

          But somehow he’s anti-semitic?

          Yeh. Okay. Glug, glug, glug.

        5. SimonP

          I think you are hearing things that no one is saying

    2. SimonP|11.1.18 @ 2:47PM|#
      “Jacob, you are an idiot….”

      As if you were capable of recognizing one, imbecile.

    3. How many police officers have been shot in response to BLM chanting “What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want them? NOW!”

      How many black men have killed white men in recent years, telling police that they just set out to kill white men?

      After years of nonstop “all non-Democrats are racists, sexists, Nazis, mass-murderers, etc” from the highest levels of the Democratic Party, how many rank-and-file Democrats plainly state their support for killing people who oppose their politics?

      And you say that calling fake news what it is is an unacceptable incitement to violence?

  17. Translation of NYT Column:

    “When my allies and I speak, we are merely exercising our constitutional First Amendment right to engage in good old-fashioned political rhetoric. But when my opponents speak, they are shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater!”

    1. And if they were reporting on an actual news event, the headline would be “REPBULICAN YELLS FIRE IN CROWDED THEATER AS DOZENS BURN TO DEATH”

  18. “Shut up, conservatives.” The NYT writer explained.

  19. Yeah, I keep forgetting the Antifa mob were die hard republicans.

  20. “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

    Because some words have magical powers that remove all agency from the listener.

  21. The incessant 24/7 mainstream media attacks on Trump are harmless?

    Let’s talk about murder.

    Every year in the US, 750,000 helpless, innocent, thinking, feeling distinct living human babies are carved to bits and dragged out of murdering liberal mothers.

    They do this for no more than the convenience of irresponsibility.

    What say you, about this initiation of genocide?

    1. I don’t disagree with you about this being murder, but your dismissal about the consequences of having the baby is ridiculous.

      The pro-life people really need to focus all of their energy and resources on developing truly awesome ways of preventing pregnancies.

      If you could come up with a pleasure maintaining or enhancing contraceptive that a male could use at will with no effort, unwanted pregnancies would plummet.

      If a female had the same options, I think you would have almost no unwanted pregnancies.

      Technology is driven by money. Get rid of all the billboards and lobbying efforts and start funding contraceptive research.

      Controlling others is never going to work. Giving others great options is always the best way forward.

      1. Do you want me to come up with a way of preventing you from committing murder?

        How about the death penalty?

        Do you also want it to be pleasurable too? We’ll let you get high first.

  22. SimonP: epic tantrum!

  23. A Democrat complaining that it’s over-the-line to call your opponent a Nazi? Really?

  24. How about we begin by locking up Maxine Waters and the mayors of Berkeley and Portland for inciting Antifa terror attacks?

  25. Semitic people’s were 75% Arab.

    Something else Jews try to steal, besides Palestine.

    Is reality anti Semitic?

  26. NY Times uses extreme rhetoric to condemn extreme rhetoric.

    This is news?

  27. This is perhaps the most ridiculous piece I have seen in Reason. I’m not particularly fond of Rutenberg, but there’s absolutely nothing in his piece that even hints at suggesting that government action/criminalization is appropriate, so why spend half the article implying such, before acknowledging, no, he doesn’t advocate that.

    And quite simply, there’s neither extreme logic or extreme (or even emotional/passionate) rhetoric in Rutenberg’s piece.

    If you disagree with Rutenberg on the significance/role of the overheated rhetoric and conspiracy theories he criticizes — and the appropriateness of large companies in enabling such — fine. (If so, you’re misguided, IMO, but you’re entitled to your opinion.) But to equate Rutenberg’s calm, fact-based — and frankly quite rational — analysis of the issue with the overheated rhetoric and conspiracy theories he criticizes is a completely false equivalence.

    You are effectively suggesting that criticism of extreme rhetoric is inherently extreme rhetoric, itself. That’s just plain ridiculous.

    I expect much better than this.

  28. It is obvious that he agrees with all the hate spewing forth from PMSNBCCNNNBCCBSABCNPR, so what does that say about him?

  29. Yeah, He also has Jewish family members. Anti-Israeli rhetoric in the form of the BDS movement is primarily associated with those who also oppose Trump.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.