re: #336 Sergey Romanov

This is a political issue and the rules weren’t written by us. Defend yourself or be eaten. It’s good to have detached academic conversations, but meanwhile Limbaughs of this world will be saying that a Democrat was trying to shoot the President. Pointing out in non-blaming way that no, there is no evidence of this guy’s left-wing roots (at least at present) and yes, his views (as known at the moment) do reside on the fringe right rather than fringe left is an honest way to deal with the issue in these circumstances. Of course, the cherry on the top would be to always point out - “no, we don’t actually say the guy was a right-winger”.

Yeah - I think it really does boil down to that, a question of strategy.

My point is that there is more than one way to “eat.” This isn’t a moral argument I’m making here, it’s a strategic argument. I don’t think that responding with a like rhetoric as Limbaugh is effective.

The rightwing is just much better at playing this game.

I got into this with a few folks here regarding branding the Tea Party as “proto-Nazis,” and actually I think it extends to the “anti-science” and “denier” memes as well. I’ve been hanging on climate blogs lately, and I’ve seen the overuse of terms like “anti-science” and “denier” as ultimately counter-productive in balance. That’s not to say that there aren’t “anti-science” and “denier” elements out there; not by a long shot. Only that extending that rhetoric beyond what is demonstrably accurate only plays into their hands. They are very, very good at this game because their heart is really into utilizing false memes expediently.