Another "Isolated Incident"

[Andiferous]

It's really hard to tell if you guys are angry or playing rough, so I don't want to intervene at this point. But if there is an issue and help is required please do use the report function, because I'm a very terrible psychic. If it keeps going into obvious nasty and pointless argument, I'm sure that something will happen to this thread at some point, though.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Yes, sir, they are. And you are repeating yourself now for no good reason. Showing that total violence is down does not support any of your arguments. It's been repeated to you several times why that is and you haven't responded to those points. Do so, or drop this line, it's not helping you.

And I keep repeating: do you have any evidence that politically motivated murders are increasing? And you keep ignoring me. Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Discussion would go a lot smoother if a certain individual didn't keep using dishonesty in his arguments and continually repeating the same strawman. Yes, politically motivated violence has increased even more so since Obama took office.

Link to article on FBI warning of increasing U.S. domestic terrorism:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-14-domestic-terrorism_x.htm

Since Sept. 11, the nation's attention has been focused on possible threats from Islamic terrorists. But home-grown terrorists have been steadily plotting and carrying out attacks in unrelated incidents across the nation, according to federal authorities and two organizations that monitor hate groups
None of the incidents over the past few years matched the devastation of 9/11 or even the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168 and remains the deadliest act of terrorism against the nation by a U.S. citizen.

But some of the alleged domestic terrorists who have been arrested had ambitious plans. The people and groups range from white supremacists, anti-government types and militia members to eco-terrorists and people who hate corporations. They include violent anti-abortionists and black and brown nationalists who envision a separate state for blacks and Latinos. And they have been busy

FBI on increase of Right Wing extremist and militia groups:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/domestic-terrorism-threat-on-the-rise-says-fbi-chief/question-1217369/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/us-surge-rightwing-extremist-groups
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/opinion/avlon.hatriots.militia_1_militia-anti-government-death-threats?_s=PM:OPINION
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/officials-see-rise-in-mil_n_257128.html

Secret Service on increased threats against Obama, 400% more than Bush:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.

And did anyone forget when Homeland Security placed Right Wing extremist groups on the terror watch list?

If you think the conservative "Tea Party" movement is daunting, take a look at a new report issued by the Department of Homeland Security that says right-wing extremism is on the rise throughout the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html


Now, Arthur, will you shut up about asking for evidence of increasing political violence? It wasn't even the main argument but since you keep bringing it up, I thought I'd put an end to your dishonesty.


EDIT: Edited my last sentence for calmness sake.

 

[Gnug215]

Mod note:

Well, this kind of debating is anything but an isolated incident when it comes to political and economic threads. It's like they're worse than religious debates, and I find that funny.

Now for the not so funny part: Calm the hell down!

Sheesh.

Rules... topic lock... then bans.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Finally, some evidence. Thanks, gnome!

As for why I'm interested in this, it's part of the claim. If you claim that violent rhetoric is responsible for violent behavior, but you can't produce said violent behavior, then your entire contention falls flat.

Now, as to your sources, I don't find them convincing. Most of behavior noted amounts to innuendo. There are more threats against a half-black president; that's not unexpected given two hundred years of race relations in this country. The number and membership in hate groups is increasing; that's not a crime, and I'm skeptical of the labeling of groups considering that the government has infiltrated neighborhood book clubs before. There's the fantastic details of a number of "plans", but little indication about how serious any of them were.

I did note two things that were listed in several articles. First, none of the more recent acts can compare to the Oklahoma City bombing. You can't blame the right wing media for that one; Fox News didn't even go on the air for another year after that. The bomber in that case had the death of the Branch Dividians at Waco as his primary motive.

Secondly, more then one source noted that the largest category of politically motivated violent crimes came from the left:

the FBI said in June that eco-terrorism , acts of violence, sabotage or property damage motivated by concern for animals or the environment , was the nation's top domestic terrorism threat. The bureau said then that eco-terrorists had committed more than 1,100 criminal acts and caused property damage estimated at least $110 million since 1976.

I feel you've failed to produce what you've set out to.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

As for why I'm interested in this, it's part of the claim. If you claim that violent rhetoric is responsible for violent behavior, but you can't produce said violent behavior, then your entire contention falls flat.

Did you somehow miss the two dozen or so links of examples of said violent behavior or were you too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut? Those examples seemed to have convinced the more neutral and non political members of these boards. I really don't understand why you keep pretending they don't exist.

Now, as to your sources, I don't find them convincing. Most of behavior noted amounts to innuendo. There are more threats against a half-black president; that's not unexpected given two hundred years of race relations in this country. The number and membership in hate groups is increasing; that's not a crime, and I'm skeptical of the labeling of groups considering that the government has infiltrated neighborhood book clubs before. There's the fantastic details of a number of "plans", but little indication about how serious any of them were.

I did note two things that were listed in several articles. First, none of the more recent acts can compare to the Oklahoma City bombing. You can't blame the right wing media for that one; Fox News didn't even go on the air for another year after that. The bomber in that case had the death of the Branch Dividians at Waco as his primary motive.

Secondly, more then one source noted that the largest category of politically motivated violent crimes came from the left:
I feel you've failed to produce what you've set out to.

This is what I get for having an honest discussion with a dishonest/delusional person. You dismiss everything I posted as innuendo and found my sources "unconvincing" and yet you turn around and use the same sources to point the blame to the other side. You can't have it both ways.

I posted that first link to establish that before Obama took office that there was evidence to point at political violence increasing, which YOU asked for. I posted it even though it implicates my side as well. Because unlike you, I'm not here to condone or make excuses for anyone inciting or carrying out violence even if they share my ideology.

But ever since Obama took office, the violence and threats have increased from the Right. There's tons of evidence to show this. It seems that you dismissed everything after my first source because it contradicted your stubborn point of view but only accepting that first source because it told you what you wanted to hear. You're not being honest, yet again.

The biggest criticism I have about the current political climate is that there are liars who refuse to admit that there are extremists on their side exacerbating the situation. These weasels keep lying about these incidents being isolated committed by random lunatics with random motives with nothing to do with politics. Even when these lunatics themselves have made it clear that their motives are indeed political.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Did you somehow miss the two dozen or so links of examples of said violent behavior or were you too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and squeezing your eyes shut? Those examples seemed to have convinced the more neutral and non political members of these boards. I really don't understand why you keep pretending they don't exist.

These only demonstrate the political violence exists, as it has existed throughout the whole of human history. A pile of anecdotes is not evidence of an increase.

This is what I get for having an honest discussion with a dishonest/delusional person. You dismiss everything I posted as innuendo and found my sources "unconvincing" and yet you turn around and use the same sources to point the blame to the other side. You can't have it both ways.

You shouldn't have a black and white view of the world. A source is neither completely reliable nor completely unreliable. I felt they were unreliable in several ways that I mentioned, but I don't dismiss them entirely.

I posted that first link to establish that before Obama took office that there was evidence to point at political violence increasing, which YOU asked for. I posted it even though it implicates my side as well. Because unlike you, I'm not here to condone or make excuses for anyone inciting or carrying out violence even if they share my ideology.

Anyone who actually incites violence or carries it out gets no support from me. However, I don't have such lax standards as to say that violence is occurring because there are people on TV making vague and bombastic statements.

But ever since Obama took office, the violence and threats have increased from the Right. There's tons of evidence to show this. It seems that you dismissed everything after my first source because it contradicted your stubborn point of view but only accepting that first source because it told you what you wanted to hear. You're not being honest, yet again.

Not at all, a lot of the sources made similar claims. For example, the cnn article says:

. During the late 1960s, there were more than 1,000 shootings, arsons and bombings from left-wing radical groups.

And most of the sources are quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center's claims about the increase in membership in hate groups.

The biggest criticism I have about the current political climate is that there are liars who refuse to admit that there are extremists on their side exacerbating the situation. These weasels keep lying about these incidents being isolated committed by random lunatics with random motives with nothing to do with politics. Even when these lunatics themselves have made it clear that their motives are indeed political.

I'm not denying the existence of extremists or the damage they do. However, putting responsibility on TV personalities is to miss the point entirely.

Also, since Loughner started out this discussion, here's a video from him:


Kindly point out the deep political motives he had.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's an interesting article about violent rhetoric and the link to violence in mentally ill people.

Thus the problem on a large scale is really one of media ethics. If major-level pundits are spewing irresponsible speech to the masses on a large scale, their responsibility for what ensues is profound indeed.

The critical components that distinguish irresponsible speech from responsible speech are interworking and interdependent, but they involve standards that are universally recognized by journalists as fundamental to their profession: truthfulness, accuracy, and fairness. Thus irresponsible speech usually has five features:

• It is factually false, or so grossly distorted and misleading as to constitute functional falsity.
• It holds certain targeted individuals or groups of people up for vilification and demonization.
• It smears them with false or misleading information that depicts them in a degraded light.
• It depicts them as either emblematic, or the actual source, of a significant problem or a major threat.
• It leads its audience to conclude that the solution to the problem manifested by these people is their elimination.