Rep. Gabrielle Giffords: Culture War Casualty

[SpaceCDT]

Do you think this kind of violent rhetoric is acceptable?

Yes; the First Amendment demands that we accept (in the sense of "allow") it. Free speech is hard to accept, I know, but it is better then the alternative.

In the moral sense of "accept"; it is not the method I would chose to employ, but I firmly believe in the free exchange of ideas. if that's how people want to express themselves, I support them doing so.

Do you think the violent rhetoric is positive or negative for the country?

Negative in that it is rhetoric. Unless you can demonstrate via evidence that talking about violence leads to violent action in a statistically significant way, that factor is not significant. Violent calls to action are demonstrably negative in an immediate sense; I would have to reserve judgment in a long-term sense, as the influence of any event (including violent ones) are decided by their effect.

If someone handed you a pistol full of blanks and asked you to shoot it up in the air to support a political rally, would you find it distasteful?

That would depend a large amount on context. If the crowd were not sufficiently warned (explicitly or implicitly), then it would be extremely objectionable in that it would cause undue alarm and possibly injury. Given adequate warning, firing off blanks in the air (with due safety precautions) is nothing more then an act of exhuberence.

Well written, and I agree.

 

[SpaceCDT]

Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow addresses the aspect of gun laws:

Indeed, Australias new gun laws enacted in 1996 have made it much more difficult for people to purchase handguns, and most people are required to participate in club sport. We haven't had a mass shooting since these laws came into place.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You're taking disparate elements that happen to appear together and imputing upon them a common meaning which is not found in an unbiased viewing. Targeting effort is a metaphor found in many contexts. Of course they would want to remove a politician they disagreed with from office. Firing an automatic rifle sounds like fun.

"Happen to appear together?" That ad didn't have three different authors, it's no accident that its "disparate elements" "appeared together." Targeting is a common metaphor, sure. It isn't commonly combined with firing guns when used as such. Your willful ignorance is astounding.

Yes, the Republican author put in a secret message ordering the death of Mrs. Gifford which the shooter correctly decoded and acted upon! :tinfoil:

These are simply three news items that got lumped into a short title and only appear sinister in hindsight.

The speech does not cause the action; the underlying cultural values (and brownshirts in the case of the Nazis) cause both.

And you don't think Palin and Beck have any influence on our cultural values? Or at least the values of their followers?[/quote]

We don't have State-run media. Beck and Palin are popular because they concur with the values of a large segment of the population and tell them the things they want to hear. Certainly some feedback occurs, but Palin and Beck are not controlling the population to do things they don't want to do.

Indeed, Australias new gun laws enacted in 1996 have made it much more difficult for people to purchase handguns, and most people are required to participate in club sport. We haven't had a mass shooting since these laws came into place.

I'm a little concerned about all the government interventions I hear about going on in Australia, but good on them for this one.

 

[SpaceCDT]

Indeed, Australias new gun laws enacted in 1996 have made it much more difficult for people to purchase handguns, and most people are required to participate in club sport. We haven't had a mass shooting since these laws came into place.

I'm a little concerned about all the government interventions I hear about going on in Australia, but good on them for this one.

I wouldn't say that I'm entirely satisfied with all the aspects of the new laws - for example Paintball markers are in the same classifications a single-shot shotguns and rifles, and some other moronic inconsistencies. The part that I disagree with mostly is the removal of self defence as a valid reason to own a firearm.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

It's childish nonsense to want politicians to stop their violent rhetoric from creating a hostile environment where such a shooting could occur again?

No, it's childish to take a shooting that had absolutely nothing to do with rhetoric, attribute it to rhetoric, and then say "look, see, these people died because of you."

Find me some hate speech from the left talking heads and politicians. I'm sure you'd find a couple if you tried hard enough. But I could easily cite a mountain full from the Right. Don't even try to equivocate left rhetoric with right. It's like someone trying to equivocate extremist Islamists to militant Atheists. As I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of the violence in U.S. history for the past 50 years has been directed at the left. How in the world is that "going both ways?"

One needs only contradict a person to find out just how hateful they can be, but so few fail to realize it because bigots rarely know they're bigoted.

First of all - blaming all this shooting on the right wing - that's one example. This whole circus freak show is just a way to create animosity towards the right. These people don't even care about the lives lost, they just want a way to paint their "enemies" as the bad guys.

Then there's Ed Schultz: "You're damn right, Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him. I'm glad he didn't tip over. He is the new poster child for health care in this country. And we want Shooter to make it. Hell, we hope he goes and shoots somebody else in the face. That was a hell of a story way back when."

Olbermann vomits liquid loathing every other time he opens his mouth to speak about conservatives.

Alan Grayson stood up before congress and stated that Republicans wanted people to die quickly. He later went on to approve an ad that took a video of his opponent and twisted it so out of context that it made him look like a woman hating chauvinist.

If you pretend for even just a second that vitriol from one side is in any way more tolerable because it also comes from the other side, then you're essentially defending hateful rhetoric. You're just denouncing it when those who disagree with you use it. It makes you part of the problem.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I like this bit:

For as long as I can remember, I have heard conservatives blaming everything that is wrong in the universe, from violent crime to declining test scores to teen pregnancy to rude children to declining patriotism to probably athlete's foot . . . upon Dr. Spock, Hollywood liberals, the abolition of prayer in school, Bill Clinton, the "liberal 1960s," the teaching of evolution , in other words, upon symbols, rhetoric, cultural norms, and the values expressed by political and media leaders. Yet from the moment when someone gets a gun in their hands, apparently, society ceases to have any influence whatsoever on the outcome and individual responsibility takes hold 100%. Something is driving the tripling of death threats against congressmen (and the concomitant rise in threats against Federal judges and other villains of the right, from Forest Service rangers to climate scientists) and it isn't the sunspot cycle.

Read more: http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2011/01/not-us-cont.html#ixzz1AmexS028

 

[RichardMNixon]

Yes, the Republican author put in a secret message ordering the death of Mrs. Gifford which the shooter correctly decoded and acted upon! :tinfoil:

These are simply three news items that got lumped into a short title and only appear sinister in hindsight.

Holy fucking shit, I did not say that and already once explicitly stated that I wasn't saying that. Stop trying to paint me as a conspiracy theorist. I'm saying I'm disgusted that weapons are used so extensively in political metaphor, that killing shit with guns is the most patriotic thing you can do. I love my country and I don't have to own a gun to do it.

This man is a fucker. There is nothing more to be said. He is a fucker. Fuck him. This is not discourse, this is not expressing an opinion, this is being a fucker.

Every single source I've found contradicts your second statement. The punctuation is odd but as far as I can tell that entire statement came from Kelly; there was no coincidence or lumping involved.

 

[SpaceCDT]

This man is a fucker. There is nothing more to be said. He is a fucker. Fuck him. This is not discourse, this is not expressing an opinion, this is being a fucker.

Every single source I've found contradicts your second statement. The punctuation is odd but as far as I can tell that entire statement came from Kelly; there was no coincidence or lumping involved.

Well you disagree with him, I disagree with him, but he's still free to say what he likes, moronic signs included

 

[RichardMNixon]

Well you disagree with him, I disagree with him, but he's still free to say what he likes, moronic signs included

Yes, I agree with you entirely. However Palin and O'Reilly say the same things and get taken seriously as legitimate contributors to public discourse. This guy has the freedom to be a fucker with a moronic sign, but having a Vice Presidential candidate fucker with equally moronic rhetoric is disgraceful. I cannot understand how people continue to have any respect for Palin whatsoever.

 

[kenandkids]

It's childish nonsense to want politicians to stop their violent rhetoric from creating a hostile environment where such a shooting could occur again?

No, it's childish to take a shooting that had absolutely nothing to do with rhetoric, attribute it to rhetoric, and then say "look, see, these people died because of you."

Find me some hate speech from the left talking heads and politicians. I'm sure you'd find a couple if you tried hard enough. But I could easily cite a mountain full from the Right. Don't even try to equivocate left rhetoric with right. It's like someone trying to equivocate extremist Islamists to militant Atheists. As I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of the violence in U.S. history for the past 50 years has been directed at the left. How in the world is that "going both ways?"

One needs only contradict a person to find out just how hateful they can be, but so few fail to realize it because bigots rarely know they're bigoted.

First of all - blaming all this shooting on the right wing - that's one example. This whole circus freak show is just a way to create animosity towards the right. These people don't even care about the lives lost, they just want a way to paint their "enemies" as the bad guys.

Then there's Ed Schultz: "You're damn right, Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him. I'm glad he didn't tip over. He is the new poster child for health care in this country. And we want Shooter to make it. Hell, we hope he goes and shoots somebody else in the face. That was a hell of a story way back when."

Olbermann vomits liquid loathing every other time he opens his mouth to speak about conservatives.

Alan Grayson stood up before congress and stated that Republicans wanted people to die quickly. He later went on to approve an ad that took a video of his opponent and twisted it so out of context that it made him look like a woman hating chauvinist.

If you pretend for even just a second that vitriol from one side is in any way more tolerable because it also comes from the other side, then you're essentially defending hateful rhetoric. You're just denouncing it when those who disagree with you use it. It makes you part of the problem.

Don't forget that Olberman's show is one long "I hate them" with an added section just for emphasis: The worst person ever segment.
Don't forget that Obama's campaign was replete with war and violence and gun analogies.
Also don't forget that Ed is author of many priceless sayings, one of which was 'put them in graves.' Well, really, he said dirt holes. Of course he meant rejuvenating mud bath or something else healthy and helpful, all in the spirit of not being hateful or angry, just ask the conspiracy nuts... errmmm concerned rationalists.... that are calling for an end to free speech for their opponents... i mean enemies... I mean... damn, now I'm confused.

 

[kenandkids]

Well you disagree with him, I disagree with him, but he's still free to say what he likes, moronic signs included

Yes, I agree with you entirely. However Palin and O'Reilly say the same things and get taken seriously as legitimate contributors to public discourse. This guy has the freedom to be a fucker with a moronic sign, but having a Vice Presidential candidate fucker with equally moronic rhetoric is disgraceful. I cannot understand how people continue to have any respect for Palin whatsoever.

I agree whole-heartedly, especially with your final sentence. The problem is that we cannot paint our opponents as enemies and take every opportunity to blame them for every bad thing someone else does.

"I hate all of these people that belong to this group" is not an effective way to combat "I hate all of these people that belong to this group" and is not improving the situation in ANY manner. If you want people to not be taken seriously, do everything you can to illustrate the flaws in their arguments and point out all inconsistencies. Help others do the same. This is the only way to "combat" an alternate ideology.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

No, it's childish to take a shooting that had absolutely nothing to do with rhetoric, attribute it to rhetoric, and then say "look, see, these people died because of you."

Uh huh. It's childish for others to point out how rhetoric can potentially be dangerous but it's perfectly fine for you to form your own conclusion that it had nothing to do with rhetoric. Why? Because you say so? No, you're trying desperately to paint others as childish just because you don't agree with it. THAT'S childish.

First of all - blaming all this shooting on the right wing - that's one example. This whole circus freak show is just a way to create animosity towards the right. These people don't even care about the lives lost, they just want a way to paint their "enemies" as the bad guys.

Oh yes, the Right playing the victim card again. Spout a bunch of violent nonsense and then when something bad does happen, they play the victim when they're called out on their tactics.

Then there's Ed Schultz: "You're damn right, Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him. I'm glad he didn't tip over. He is the new poster child for health care in this country. And we want Shooter to make it. Hell, we hope he goes and shoots somebody else in the face. That was a hell of a story way back when."

As I said before, I had no doubt you'd find a couple of vitriol laden speech from the left. And I'm even reasonable enough to not to try to defend this speech unlike some people.

Olbermann vomits liquid loathing every other time he opens his mouth to speak about conservatives.

So the fuck what? Is any of it implied violence against conservatives?

Alan Grayson stood up before congress and stated that Republicans wanted people to die quickly. He later went on to approve an ad that took a video of his opponent and twisted it so out of context that it made him look like a woman hating chauvinist.

And he was completely wrong for doing so. But again, where is the violent rhetoric?

If you pretend for even just a second that vitriol from one side is in any way more tolerable because it also comes from the other side, then you're essentially defending hateful rhetoric. You're just denouncing it when those who disagree with you use it. It makes you part of the problem.

NO. YOU are doing that. You apologists keep pretending this is coming from both sides. Why do you think we keep asking you for this so called violent rhetoric coming from the Left? So far you've only come up with ONE instance where someone on the Left said anything violent. Fucking laughable.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Don't forget that Olberman's show is one long "I hate them" with an added section just for emphasis: The worst person ever segment.

Boo fucking hoo. Did he say anything remotely violent laden? Give me examples.

Don't forget that Obama's campaign was replete with war and violence and gun analogies.

Again give me examples.

,just ask the conspiracy nuts... errmmm concerned rationalists.... that are calling for an end to free speech for their opponents... i mean enemies... I mean... damn, now I'm confused.

Shut up with your strawman already.

 

[kenandkids]

Keep throwing your fit, I'm sure gnomes everywhere are impressed...

Your name calling especially makes your point VERY well...

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Keep throwing your fit, I'm sure gnomes everywhere are impressed...

Your name calling especially makes your point VERY well...

What name did I call you, Kenandkids? And I'm still waiting for you to give me those examples to back up your claims.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Uh huh. It's childish for others to point out how rhetoric can potentially be dangerous but it's perfectly fine for you to form your own conclusion that it had nothing to do with rhetoric. Why? Because you say so? No, you're trying desperately to paint others as childish just because you don't agree with it. THAT'S childish.

Say what you want, but I'm not the one making unfounded accusations and insisting that X must have caused Y because I don't like X.

Oh yes, the Right playing the victim card again. Spout a bunch of violent nonsense and then when something bad does happen, they play the victim when they're called out on their tactics.

No one has proved anything bad has happened due to rhetoric, therefore it is entirely dishonest to be blaming it all on rhetoric - and even more dishonest to blame it on a specific group's rhetoric.

So the fuck what? Is any of it implied violence against conservatives?

Well, if you're going to argue that rhetoric has anything to do with violent outbursts, then perhaps you should consider that hateful rhetoric inspires more hate, and crazy people often target those they dislike.

NO. YOU are doing that. You apologists keep pretending this is coming from both sides. Why do you think we keep asking you for this so called violent rhetoric coming from the Left? So far you've only come up with ONE instance where someone on the Left said anything violent. Fucking laughable.

It is coming from both sides, but you're too anti-conservative to see that because you WANT them to be the bad guys. Think what you want, say what you want - I know you can't be reasoned with. Conservatives are the bad guys and they need to be punished.

So much for reasonable discourse.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I hate extended quote wars with one person so don't be surprised that I don't reply anymore to you after this.

Say what you want, but I'm not the one making unfounded accusations and insisting that X must have caused Y because I don't like X.

I don't know how many times you dishonest apologists are going to use this strawman but it's got to stop. No one said X directly caused Y. No one ever stated anything so oversimplistic. I'm simply saying that WE but especially those on the Right who have been spewing violent rhetoric must stop. How stupid can we be if we don't use the shooting to reflect upon and learn from our mistakes? How dare we ask folks to stop spewing crap so that we can have a peaceful political environment!

No one has proved anything bad has happened due to rhetoric, therefore it is entirely dishonest to be blaming it all on rhetoric - and even more dishonest to blame it on a specific group's rhetoric.

No one has proved anything bad happened due to rhetoric? Did you fucking miss the whole brick throwing fiasco? Oh wait, you guys keep saying that's not violent because it was "just vandalism". I guess that's the whole problem.

Well, if you're going to argue that rhetoric has anything to do with violent outbursts, then perhaps you should consider that hateful rhetoric inspires more hate, and crazy people often target those they dislike.

It is coming from both sides, but you're too anti-conservative to see that because you WANT them to be the bad guys. Think what you want, say what you want - I know you can't be reasoned with. Conservatives are the bad guys and they need to be punished.

So much for reasonable discourse.

No it's not coming from both sides. People have been asking over and over for examples of "Left wing violent rhetoric" but you apologists have only come up with ONE legitimate example. Me and others have provided a dozen links, articles and videos illustrating Right wing violent rhetoric but where is your evidence? And you call me the unreasonable one here? You're no better than a Creationist. People keep asking you for evidence but you supply little to none.


And when have I said that I want anyone punished? Where has anyone here said that? I simply want the right wing to realize that their violent speech can have consequences and I'd like them to cut it out. For a party who screams so much about "personal responsibility" they have very little to none.

 

[Aught3]

MODNOTE

You're no better than a Creationist.

Watch the insults please!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


And to everyone - perhaps straw manning each post is not the way to go? Responding to direct quotes may help avoid this problem.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. I was pointing out the similarly flawed thought processes there. Would "theist" be a better replacement? But I apologize anyway.

 

[televator]

No one has proved anything bad has happened due to rhetoric, therefore it is entirely dishonest to be blaming it all on rhetoric - and even more dishonest to blame it on a specific group's rhetoric.

Rhetoric is a means to persuade people toward an idea or action for good or bad. Whether it be the presidential elections or recruiting for a Neo-NAZI group, this is the tool to use. If you take away a man's soap box he'll have no way to persuade people. What other means do you propose an ideology has to spread out on?

By what means did the Catholic church spread its message against the use of condoms and contraceptives? Anything bad happen as a result?

By what means are children indoctrinated into religion? Is that a bad thing or not?

The only dishonesty would be in denying the power of rhetoric especially when it permeates most news outlets so profusely. Now, once you start throwing in gun analogies with a wink or just straight up tell people about how guns can remedy their problems....what the hell can one to expect from that? I don't think it needs more proof. It's as sure a thing as why trees sway in the wind. The wind causes trees to sway. The violent political rhetoric playing back and fourth on all the news increases political acts of violence.