posted
A college level course on psychology (yes, I've taken a couple) offers less education on any specific pathology than can be gleaned from an afternoon of web surfing.
EDIT: I'm referring, of course, to a general focus class like Psych 101.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How old are you, Samprimary? 13? Have you ever had a college level course in psychology, as I have? What is your problem, child! Is this the best you can do in debate?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What do you mean, 'clearly believed?' Is there some information somewhere showing demonstratively and clearly that he aligned himself with communists, or are you inferring it baldly based on the yt book list?
Here's a big clue-in for the cheap seats, by the way: The odds that the shooter has actually read through the books on his favorite books list is exceedingly low. That, and as has already been put through the wringer a couple of times in this thread alone, he could have read all of them multiple times, and still using X book to 'clearly' conclude Y ideology is wrong, and a great big waste of time. Yes, I'll even defend the commies from made-up associations with Loughner.
i think you only partially grasped my point. i was illustrating a point that senojretep made a few posts before this one: its irresponsible to draw casual connections between this mans actions and some specific political rhetoric, old or new.
its irresponsible because we dont know to what degree he was influence by the things he heard and read. i didnt say he aligned solely with communists anyway but that he 'clearly believed' the rhetoric in the communist manifesto (i never claimed thats all he believes) or else why would he list that as a favorite book? the cool plot line? the character development? if i listed the federalist papers as one of my favorite pieces of political literature how could you assume i didnt believe some of the ideas contained therein?
whoever miller is hes entitled to his own opinion and you can agree with it if you want. an honest follower of this tragic event would defend anyone from made-up associations with loughner.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Yes, if this were the era of communism, it would be absolutely correct to call for toning down the rhetoric. One could argue that communist rhetoric has been possibly the most damaging in history globally.
However, this is no longer the era of communism, and we are talking about the U.S. specifically. There have been times in our nation's history when liberals have been overwhelmingly unreasonable and ridiculous in their rhetoric. However, in our present time and place, I think it'd be fairly clear to any impartial observer that conservatives have taken the lead in outlandish, hurtful rhetoric, and thus it needs to be first and foremost conservatives who stop supporting the vocal advocates of hurtful rhetoric among them.
i agree that this isnt the era of nations embracing communism but the ideas are still influential. the influence on an idea can be equally potent now as was 100 yeas ago. a persons ideology must be taken in the aggregate and its likely this man drew from many sources.
my point is that its not possible to draw a straight line from these people being shot to conservative rhetoric, however outlandish it might be. all the liberals trying to capitalize on this tragedy and silence opposing ideas are failing to demonstrably connect conservative rhetoric and loughner. its silly to assume becks childish rants and palins 'crosshairs' = a deranged man killing people. i support the call for more civil dialogue but not baseless speculation such as this.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How old are you, Samprimary? 13? Have you ever had a college level course in psychology, as I have? What is your problem, child! Is this the best you can do in debate?
Although I'm sure Samp is absolutely giddy to respond to this himself, I will say in no uncertain terms that attempting to disparage another poster on account of age, education, and ending the whole thing with a taunt is pretty solidly in TOS violation territory.
It does not matter that you couched the whole thing in polite sounding language, the intent is uncalled for. You have a habit of doing it Ron, and I'm not going to allow it. Please refrain from doing it in the future.
As an aside, I took psychology courses in college, courses I got good grades in. It most certainly did not put me on an unassailable plateau as you seem to think it does for you.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to take a moderate step here, if you don't mind.
I am one of the liberal voices that you may find on this website.
I am not happy with the easy answer the press has found to this tragedy--that political partisanship has gotten to extreme.
I am very upset that this easy answer was provided by, and promoted by the liberal outlets, liberal politicians, and liberal talking heads.
The facts are the facts. The idiot who did the shooting is mentally disturbed and not under the influence of any fascist conservative talking pundit. The more they see this as an excuse to force the tone to be more civil, the worse they sound.
I do laugh, however, at the knee-jerk reactions of the professional politicians on the right who immediately went into "Lie and Cover" mode as soon as this tragedy happened. If the Left is guilty of blaming this tragedy on the violent talk that has found its way into politics, the Right is guilty of covering up as much of their previous violent imagery.
Sure its nauseating when NPR spends most of the day stating that violent talk from the right has gone to far. On the other hand its quite amusing to watch Sara Palin explain away her graphics as mere "Surveyor Symbols".
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two things. First, most people are not drawing a straight line between violent images and speech and the shooting; they are expressing concern about a atmosphere of anger and violence contributing to acts of violence. That is not so far fetched.
Second, don't pretend that we are just now expressing those concerns in order to exploit a tragedy. People have been expressing concern about the angry, violent rhetoric and images in politics generally for years and more specifically in recent months. Including Rep. Gifford herself.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Two things. First, most people are not drawing a straight line between violent images and speech and the shooting; they are expressing concern about a atmosphere of anger and violence contributing to acts of violence. That is not so far fetched.
Lines, direct or not, are not justified. There's no evidence that Laughner's choices had anything to do with any of the incendiary rhetoric you are decrying.
quote:Second, don't pretend that we are just now expressing those concerns in order to exploit a tragedy. People have been expressing concern about the angry, violent rhetoric and images in politics generally for years and more specifically in recent months. Including Rep. Gifford herself.
I never suggested otherwise. I suggested some commentators were opportunistically using this event, inappropriately, to further the agenda of toning down vitriolic rhetoric. An agenda I'm not opposed to, but which I feel is poorly served by the current thread of conversation, specifically because it is so poorly justified.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The testimony of everyone who has worked with Gabrielle Giffords in Congress, on either side of the aisle, is that they like her as a person. Some people may disagree with her politics, and campaign as resolutely as they can against her in elections. But that does not mean that hating some aspects of her politics is equivalent to hating her as a person.
You're changing the discussion again. Before you said 'no one who counted hated her'. That plainly, provably wasn't true. Now you're changing it to 'none of her political peers will testify as to having hated her', which is you must admit a very different thing.
quote:Equating political opposition to criminal agitation is another example of liberal distortion of reality in a desperate attempt to overcome the clear advantage conservatives have in the polls.
Who here is doing that? Who that you are discussing this issue with right now is doing that, Ron? You're straw-manning again, and quite deliberately refusing at this point to address specifically worded questions and posts that are politely asked.
quote:This is why everyone here needs to shut up about political causes for the attempted assassination in Tucson.
If this is true, you need to include yourself in that number, Ron, because you did it too. Do I need to quote you again?
quote:How old are you, Samprimary? 13? Have you ever had a college level course in psychology, as I have? What is your problem, child! Is this the best you can do in debate?
Ron...name-calling like this is not really the best way to illustrate to someone that they're behaving childishly in a discussion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, don't pretend that we are just now expressing those concerns in order to exploit a tragedy. People have been expressing concern about the angry, violent rhetoric and images in politics generally for years and more specifically in recent months. Including Rep. Gifford herself.
I'd like to echo this. When I was listening more to conservative radio, about a year ago, I was much more in touch with what was being said, and it wasn't pretty. Many progressives were right to express concerns that many conservatives were using militant imagery to describe them as well as the measures that needed to be taken to stop them.
Lets say this guy is completely off his rocker, and has *zero* ties to conservative thought. Is the state of popular conservative rhetoric such that there isn't a reasonable chance somebody might do what he did, in the name of stopping the liberal agenda? I can't in all honesty say it is.
Does that mean liberals are spotless? No, of course not, nobody has said that was the case. Liberals have a terrible problem with acting superior to those who do not agree with them. Derriding their values as old fashioned, and acting as if conservatives are nothing but gunk that needs to be cleaned out so the machine of progress can run smoothly.
Coincidentally liberals don't strongly support the individuals right to bear arms, and so the image of a lone person with their gun standing up to the government does not resonate with them. Do they wish the current slew of popular conservatives big mouths could be silenced so that their ideas could be easily spread, sure, but they aren't suggesting that violence is part of that equation, or even remotely close to being called for.
If conservatives (and many *are doing this) would simply decry this sort of action, and tell their audience that they are ashamed that any American would resort to this action, *then* complain that liberals are trying to capitalize on this incident, I would be perfectly content.
As it is, in my time listening to conservative media, I have been impressed with their ability to rouse emotions in an apathetic populace, but not their ability to suppress those who take those emotions too far.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If conservatives (and many *are doing this) would simply decry this sort of action, and tell their audience that they are ashamed that any American would resort to this action, *then* complain that liberals are trying to capitalize on this incident, I would be perfectly content.
Me too. Beams and motes and all that, really.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
Wait a second, I'm confused here. How about BOTH sides use more common sense and restraint? It took 10 minutes before democrats on media outlets were questioning whether or not this kid had anything to do with the Tea Party, even though there was no information whatsoever linking the two.
Let's be honest. Even if Conservatives stopped using the kind of rhetoric you disagree with, Democrats would just come up with something else to complain about. And vice versa.
This is just politics as usual. It's been going on for over 200 years.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
It's fine to want that. I want that too. But achieving that by suggesting, particularly in this low information/high speculation environment, that Laughner committed this crime (partially) because of <edit>conservative</edit> big mouths and the environment they created is both unjustifiable and counter-productive.
<edit>For reasons it's counter-productive see every post by Geraine, Ron and capaxinfiniti in this thread. Because the discussion began with accusation, it's continued with defensiveness, counter accusation and bickering. Both sides get frustrated and in the end the problems are exacerbated rather than ameliorated.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If conservatives (and many *are doing this) would simply decry this sort of action, and tell their audience that they are ashamed that any American would resort to this action, *then* complain that liberals are trying to capitalize on this incident, I would be perfectly content.
Me too. Beams and motes and all that, really.
They would have to disapprove first. Not intellectually difficult- but if you spend all your time as a pundit exhorting emotion and action and arousing agression, then putting the brakes on things doesn't come that naturally. And constantly touching on violent imagery, I would think, could put you in a violent sort of mood as well. One might not be ashamed to see this kind of thing happening. Thing is, I think at least some conservative pundits don't particularly disapprove of violence- particularly the ones on the wing nut fringe.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
I wasn't very clear on this point. When I meant silenced I meant "They wish they'd shut up." But, I *have* heard liberals gripe about the fairness doctrine, when to me that's just them whining that they don't have the same viewership somebody like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh has.
--------
Gerraine: Whether or not conservatives need to tone down their rhetoric is *completely* again I say, *completely* unrelated to what liberals are doing. It's the right thing to do, so do it! If we all wait for everyone else to live at a standard before we are willing to live it ourselves, no positive change can take place.
I promise you, if liberal media voices start talking about using guns to enforce their agenda, I'll be one of the first to decry it, and tell them to stop immediately. Right now, conservatives are talking about guns, the possible end of the union/civilization in this country, government taking away all our rights (among others, the right to have a gun) and so a rebellion might be necessary, etc. It needs to stop. ------
posted
Actually Sam, at the university I attended, General Psychology was taught on the Sophomore level--as it usually is in most colleges. Or at least it was back then, when academic standards were higher.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you like to use a shovel Ron? digging with bare hands can be uncomfortable and I keep my own tools around for when I too resort to quippy little insults to misdirect a discussion, although I prefer my grave shallow as to hear them laugh at me above.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Actually Sam, at the university I attended, General Psychology was taught on the Sophomore level--as it usually is in most colleges. Or at least it was back then, when academic standards were higher.
Ron, I am not kidding. One more post like this, and we will be going in a different direction.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: General Psychology was taught on the Sophomore level--as it usually is in most colleges.
'Scuse me? In every college I am familiar with (and as someone who processes transfer credits, I've seen catalogs from quite a few), General Psychology is PSY 101 (or PSYCH 100, or PSYC 1001) -- a very basic FIRST-year course.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Janitor Blade, when Samprimary and his kindred here in this forum quit seizing upon every little thing they can think of in anything I post on any subject to insult me and ridicule me and denounce my intelligence and knowledge, then I will no longer feel it is necessary to rebuke them as they deserve. They are the offenders. If you focus on me just because I am an easy target, being one person who is regularly piled upon, instead of taking all of them to task--for they are the ones truly and entirely at fault--then you are not doing a good job as a moderator. You are taking the easy way out.
Do you really want this forum to continue to be regarded as dominated by atheists and agnostics and anti-religious skeptics? Does Orson Scott Card identify with that crowd? I am the only one seriously fighting back, challenging their hegemony, countering their arguments and disputing their facts (or lack of same). If you side with them, then you have made this their forum. No one with religious beliefs need participate. They'll just get shouted down by the anti-religious minority, and you won't do anything about it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I'm neither an atheist, agnostic, nor an anti-religious skeptic, though I do place a high value on skepticism. In any event unless I've multiple personalities I'm neither an atheist nor anti-religious. I've asked you multiple direct, polite, and relevant questions that are relevant to the discussion at hand, many of which you've ignored. It's possible you've ignored all of them, I'm not sure right now. So that's another thing you're provably wrong about.
You can either accept that, or persist in flattering your own vanity by believing something that simply isn't true.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
And, Geoff, I agree, in a sense- I don't necessarily want to see basic freedom of speech amended here any more than I want books to be banned because they're "communist" or video games or heavy metal music banned because they "cause" school shootings. But the paradigm has to shift to the point where people within a party or group feel empowered to say that their members or leaders who suggest violence towards their political adversaries might be justifiable are a blight on their party and unacceptable, and people outside that group are rightfully empowered to castigate those who trivialize violence for the sickness they are. Right now it seems like equating yourself with our forefathers and wrapping yourself in the flag makes you immune to any kind of censure.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Janitor Blade, when Samprimary and his kindred here in this forum quit seizing upon every little thing they can think of in anything I post on any subject to insult me and ridicule me and denounce my intelligence and knowledge, then I will no longer feel it is necessary to rebuke them as they deserve. They are the offenders. If you focus on me just because I am an easy target, being one person who is regularly piled upon, instead of taking all of them to task--for they are the ones truly and entirely at fault--then you are not doing a good job as a moderator. You are taking the easy way out.
Do you really want this forum to continue to be regarded as dominated by atheists and agnostics and anti-religious skeptics? Does Orson Scott Card identify with that crowd? I am the only one seriously fighting back, challenging their hegemony, countering their arguments and disputing their facts (or lack of same). If you side with them, then you have made this their forum. No one with religious beliefs need participate. They'll just get shouted down by the anti-religious minority, and you won't do anything about it.
I am well aware that there are other posters who do not abide by the TOS, and I do my best to deal with them on a case by case basis. You are certainly welcome to whistle their posts or point out to me when they step out of line.
In this particular instance your posts are a violation of the TOS. I'm not dogpiling you, though you may seem to you this way. I am not everywhere and in all things all the time, I have to go off what I see and am made aware of. Your posts in this thread are not the only violation of the TOS, and if you look closely I have said as much to other posters.
I don't much care what the ratio of atheists, Christians, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Wiccas is. I care that conversations that abide by the TOS take place here. This place was never intended to be a forum for any one group of people except one I label "TOS abiding human beings."
If you have other plans for this site, I suggest you take it up with the Cards, or submit an email to me and I will gladly forward it to them.
As a courtesy, if you disagree with anything I am saying in this post, I think our conversation has reached a point where we ought to take it to email so as to not distract from the conversation at hand.
posted
Ron, seriously, what this has to do with is that you used a psychological word — specifically, schizoid — which has nothing to do with a psychotic/schizophrenic break, but which I guess sounded similar enough that you used it or you were under the mistaken impression that schizoid is one of those words that means generic la-la shooting spree crazy, but schizoid means a personality disorder typified by avoidance of social activity and extreme reluctance to engage in interaction with others. It's being an extreme shut-in. A 'schizoid break' — not that that's used terminology for anything — would be him shutting himself in at home and not talking to anyone.
That's it. It's just called 'using a wrong word.' You just exposed a level of amateur pseudopsychology which you really do need to scale back on, especially if you've convinced yourself that you 'always know what you're talking about' or that once upon a time you had psych 101 minus the high level courses in deviant psychology that pertain specifically to this stuff. You do not need to turn this into an epic Ron christian martyrdom narrative of you standing heroically against the unclean secular hordes. You get prodded constantly because you write very dumb and incorrect things and are impervious to correction or the admission of being wrong in nearly all of those instances, not because the forum views you some insolent way for daring to keep this place 'safe' for the pious or something. It is the mother of all invented narratives.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <edit>For reasons it's counter-productive see every post by Geraine, Ron and capaxinfiniti in this thread. Because the discussion began with accusation, it's continued with defensiveness, counter accusation and bickering. Both sides get frustrated and in the end the problems are exacerbated rather than ameliorated.</edit>
the counter-accusation has little to do with anything proposed here. If I'm a side, I didn't get frustrated, I pointed out that I'm glad that the tastelessness of common imagery and speech used in politics — and, whether conservatives want to admit it or not, much more tastelessly by their side than by liberals; they want to hide behind a false equivalency and say the liberals should share the 'blame' for the crafting of the national rhetoric — in a way which has ramped up significantly in the last two years has now become a political liability.
If I was frustrated by anything, it's that it wasn't already. Or that the 'he's not our problem' game would be hashed out to death by the counter-accusation crowd. Wait, I'm not even frustrated by that. I expected it so much that it's just become noise.
Somebody else said this, and I find it remarkably worthwhile to repeat:
quote:Naturally, most people don't ever act out in violence, but they propagate the mindset until it infects the next Jared Loughner. By then the direct influence is gone, it's simply the ripple effect of thousands of angry people splashing violent rhetoric against a fragile mind. We can all claim it wasn't our fault, exactly, and move on.
posted
Sterling, thanks for pointing out the Daily Show video. That was a nice viewpoint compared to what I've heard on the radio so far.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to mention that Jon Stewart video, but I'll content myself to simply point out it's pretty much how I feel about the matter.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE] Gerraine: Whether or not conservatives need to tone down their rhetoric is *completely* again I say, *completely* unrelated to what liberals are doing. It's the right thing to do, so do it! If we all wait for everyone else to live at a standard before we are willing to live it ourselves, no positive change can take place.
I promise you, if liberal media voices start talking about using guns to enforce their agenda, I'll be one of the first to decry it, and tell them to stop immediately. Right now, conservatives are talking about guns, the possible end of the union/civilization in this country, government taking away all our rights (among others, the right to have a gun) and so a rebellion might be necessary, etc. It needs to stop.
Blackblade, I can point out some Democrats that are calling for the same thing, especially after the November election. Ted Rall's Anti-American Manifesto is an example. And before you say "He is just a cartoonist," this guy has been a political commentator on MSNBC.
To even suggest that Conservatives are the only ones with violent rhetoric right now is simply ridiculous.
Biden said he would like to strangle the next Republican that talked about balancing the budget. Obama said before the election that if a Republican held Congress were elected that it would result in "hand to hand combat."
Did anyone think for a second that Obama was going to uppercut John Boehner? No. Nor did anyone believe that Biden wanted to strangle anyone? Joe Manchin actually fired a rifle in a political ad at a copy of the cap and trade bill. No uproar over that.
Congressman Paul Kanjorski said:
quote:"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks"
I'm sorry, I don't buy that Conservatives are the only group with violent rhetoric. Do they contribute to the problem? Absolutely, and the rhetoric must change. Here we have a (now former) Congressman saying someone should put a governor against a wall and shoot him. To me that sounds pretty violent, and a lot worse than putting targets on a map or saying "Don't Retreat, Reload."
This attempt to demonize the Conservative movement based on rhetoric that the Democrats themselves use is just dishonest, hypocritical, and stupid. If you want to change the rhetoric and discussion, don't engage in it yourself. You just make yourself look like a fool. (That comment wasn't directed to anyone on the forum, but to everyone out there in politics and the media )
That being said, both sides need to tone it down. Violence doesn't belong in political discussion. There are ways to talk about gun control without using violent metaphors, and I do not believe that Conservatives have tried to do that hard enough.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My two cents: I think the criticism that Sarah Palin etc. has received for e.g. rifle cross-hairs on maps is unfair (don't worry; I will get around to criticizing her later). To me, this is perfectly consistent with the violence shown on TV, in video games etc., and is no more or less likely to cause violence than these.
Having said that, I do think the commentary targeting viewers/listeners paranoia can lead bad outcomes from those with problems. Both this latest case and the guy who flew into the IRS building are not really identifiably right or left. They both are, however, disturbed and very anti-government. IMO, when the democrats have control, there is a subset of commentators on the right whose views morph from being small government to being anti-government, and they fuel anti-government sentiment with conspiracy theories such as end-of-life-counseling == death-panels. Is there a world of difference between thinking that the US government is planning to off old people and thinking the US government is using grammar as a means of control? The willingness to say anything to divert the debate has the side effect of legitimizing cranks. This can be avoided by actually trying to make substantive policy points.
posted
Geraine, your every post seems totally preoccupied with insisting angrily that we can not possibly criticize the conservative rhetoric more than its liberal counterpart. You also keep suggesting these things:
quote:I'm sorry, I don't buy that Conservatives are the only group with violent rhetoric.
quote:To even suggest that Conservatives are the only ones with violent rhetoric right now is simply ridiculous.
Where is it being commonly said that conservatives have ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the violent rhetoric? Would you at least admit they have the lion's share of the violent rhetoric and imagery that ends up looking terrible after an event like this?
When six lie dead and another fourteen are wounded, now suddenly we're concerned that it is rude and politicizing a tragedy to point out that the right wing has pioneered and produced a toxic atmosphere that pollutes our politics with hatred and the rhetoric of violence?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the counter-accusation has little to do with anything proposed here. If I'm a side, I didn't get frustrated, I pointed out that I'm glad that the tastelessness of common imagery and speech used in politics — and, whether conservatives want to admit it or not, much more tastelessly by their side than by liberals; they want to hide behind a false equivalency and say the liberals should share the 'blame' for the crafting of the national rhetoric — in a way which has ramped up significantly in the last two years has now become a political liability.
If I was frustrated by anything, it's that it wasn't already. Or that the 'he's not our problem' game would be hashed out to death by the counter-accusation crowd. Wait, I'm not even frustrated by that. I expected it so much that it's just become noise.
Somebody else said this, and I find it remarkably worthwhile to repeat:
quote:Naturally, most people don't ever act out in violence, but they propagate the mindset until it infects the next Jared Loughner. By then the direct influence is gone, it's simply the ripple effect of thousands of angry people splashing violent rhetoric against a fragile mind. We can all claim it wasn't our fault, exactly, and move on.
When I mentioned counter-accusations, I was refering to the reflexive need to defend one's self (or ideological co-travellers) by saying "Anyway, your side does it too." Neither the initial accusation, nor the defensive counter-accusation, are helpful for moving the conversation forward.
<edit>And neither does the counter-counter-accusation (ala Parkour's entry into the fray). I'm not condemning it, I think it's wholly understandable from both sides. But exactly because it's understandable, even predictable, it's why tying the debate over angry rhetoric to a tragedy like this is a move doomed to failure. It's bound to result in squabbling rather than discussion. Unless that's the goal (to get your political opponents angry), in which case I think it's strategically flawed and somewhat morally reprehensible.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get to be team counter counter counter accusation!
What makes my position different is that some of us came from places where Palin's bullseye map was known and already criticized. People were saying "This is stupid. What if one of these people is shot? Palin should know better than to engage in this". We already knew that there was a bunch of stupid silly imagery by alarmists and anti-government people that created violent rhetoric. This all came before the shooting. Maybe you were not seeing any of it here.
Then when the shooting happened, that was the FIRST THING we thought of. Remember those bullseyes? Remember don't retreat, reload? Yeah. Now that something like this happened, this is what we were talking about. Now they catch flack for it, and WE KNOW WHY.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Remember those bullseyes? Remember don't retreat, reload? Yeah. Now that something like this happened, this is what we were talking about. Now they catch flack for it, and WE KNOW WHY.
there is still no evidence showing that palin's crosshair/bullseye/reload comments led the shooter to commit the violent act he did.
and from above:
quote:Where is it being commonly said that conservatives have ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the violent rhetoric? Would you at least admit they have the lion's share of the violent rhetoric and imagery that ends up looking terrible after an event like this?
conservatives dont have the lions share of any such thing. and 'lions' share is a misleading term to use because there simply isnt that much violent rhetoric out there especially considering everything thats said among the many forms of media.
and this:
quote:When six lie dead and another fourteen are wounded, now suddenly we're concerned that it is rude and politicizing a tragedy to point out that the right wing has pioneered and produced a toxic atmosphere that pollutes our politics with hatred and the rhetoric of violence?
how can you blame the entire right-wing for what you believe to be a toxic and violent political environment? they pioneered it?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"there is still no evidence showing that palin's crosshair/bullseye/reload comments led the shooter to commit the violent act he did"
Which is not the point at all, and people who think that other people are making this point need to re-read. A lot.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: there is still no evidence showing that palin's crosshair/bullseye/reload comments led the shooter to commit the violent act he did.
You are valiantly assailing points which have nothing to do with what we're all talking about here. I mean, you make comments about how the thread appears to be conspiracy theory central, but upon observation, it's because you are either not reading or are poorly comprehending what stances have been made.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Which is not the point at all, and people who think that other people are making this point need to re-read. A lot.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You are valiantly assailing points which have nothing to do with what we're all talking about here. I mean, you make comments about how the thread appears to be conspiracy theory central, but upon observation, it's because you are either not reading or are poorly comprehending what stances have been made.
what is the point and what are we talking about according to your interpretations of the discussion in this thread?
i see clearly see the stances being taken and the points being made but i reject the poor logic and blatant fabrication some have use to arrive at those positions.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You don't see the point of how important it is to point out your misinterpretation of people's positions?
...
sigh.
its a simple question. i dont see why you wont answer it. if youre going to accuse me of missing the point at least show it.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You don't see the point of how important it is to point out your misinterpretation of people's positions?
...
sigh.
its a simple question. i dont see why you wont answer it. if youre going to accuse me of missing the point at least show it.
In one of my posts I said this,
quote:When I was listening more to conservative radio, about a year ago, I was much more in touch with what was being said, and it wasn't pretty. Many progressives were right to express concerns that many conservatives were using militant imagery to describe them as well as the measures that needed to be taken to stop them.
Lets say this guy is completely off his rocker, and has *zero* ties to conservative thought. Is the state of popular conservative rhetoric such that there isn't a reasonable chance somebody might do what he did, in the name of stopping the liberal agenda? I can't in all honesty say it is.
Even if this shooting wasn't prompted by conservative rhetoric, the statements people have been citing by Palin and others are the sorts of statements that prompt this sort of action.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Even if this shooting wasn't prompted by conservative rhetoric, the statements people have been citing by Palin and others are the sorts of statements that prompt this sort of action.
i can see your point but i dont think that anything said so far would prompt this sort of violent action.
what palin said is more a rally call than a call to arms or a battle cry. mentally stable and rational people know that words and imagery use in political rhetoric are often hyperbolic, highly sensational and are use to elicit an emotional response from the intended audience. this is a tactic use by all pundits and politicians to some degree or another. i think such imagery can stoke the fires of partisanship, even cause undue anger, and when in comes to this i can at least understand the call to be more civil in the national dialogue if for no other reason than to more efficiently use the political system we have.
if liberals want to silence far-right rhetoric theyre going to have to wait until something truly and intentionally violent is said because everything said so far is still within the protection of free speech and shouldnt be neutered because of the 1 in 300 million chance that some crazy deranged person might twist it into fitting their repertoire of crazy ideas.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capax- nobody here is calling for censorship. They are calling for these people to tone down their rhetoric. You can silence someone by shaming them with their own words. That isn't an abridgment of anyone's free speech.
Additionally, it is not being claimed here, by anyone, that these were real, intentional incitements to violent acts. We are claiming, with a great deal of justice, that they are appeals to violent and aggressive feelings which can turn people to violent acts of their own. As I said earlier, and which you and Geoff and several others ignored completely: you are not guilty of the actions of others, but you *are* responsible for your own rhetoric, which can be a powerful force. Guilt and responsibility are not the same things.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: its a simple question. i dont see why you wont answer it. if youre going to accuse me of missing the point at least show it.
The point is that you are assuming through blatant misinterpretation that the argument put forth here is something which it very manifestly is not. Multiple posters are trying to correct it for you, and you're still fighting against arguments that you assume are what are being offered here, but which are not. Continuing to ask 'what's the point?' when called on this accomplishes nothing except perhaps to point out to us that you don't understand, despite repeated clarifications, that you're misconstruing other people's arguments here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Even if this shooting wasn't prompted by conservative rhetoric, the statements people have been citing by Palin and others are the sorts of statements that prompt this sort of action.
i can see your point but i dont think that anything said so far would prompt this sort of violent action.
what palin said is more a rally call than a call to arms or a battle cry. mentally stable and rational people know that words and imagery use in political rhetoric are often hyperbolic, highly sensational and are use to elicit an emotional response from the intended audience. this is a tactic use by all pundits and politicians to some degree or another. i think such imagery can stoke the fires of partisanship, even cause undue anger, and when in comes to this i can at least understand the call to be more civil in the national dialogue if for no other reason than to more efficiently use the political system we have.
if liberals want to silence far-right rhetoric they're going to have to wait until something truly and intentionally violent is said because everything said so far is still within the protection of free speech and shouldn't be neutered because of the 1 in 300 million chance that some crazy deranged person might twist it into fitting their repertoire of crazy ideas.
But think of it this way. Is it really so hard to rally people together without using weapons as part of that message? Even if nobody is flat out saying, "We need to start an armed rebellion tomorrow, and take back the capital, starting with the president!" There are still ways to incite violence without saying any one thing that is out of line.
Lets take Glenn Beck for example. There have to be conservatives out there that read or listen to what he has to say right? Maybe even a considerable number of listeners as Beck last time I checked is the 3rd most listened to radio show in the nation. Now here are some things I have heard from him, that create the foundation for a very fatalistic and dangerous world view.
1: Buy gold. Yes, I'm tired of people complaining that he shills for gold companies. It's an advertisement that he has been asked to read, and has accepted. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on whether you work for the gold company, he doesn't read the advertisement as an aside from his show. He often leads into it. So after castigating the Obama administration for their financial policies, talking about debt to China, and the overall insolvency of the economy, he naturally leads into a discussion about the advantages of buying gold, because the dollar is going to fail. In short, buy gold, because when our economy collapses gold is going to be the only thing worth anything, unless of course Obama is stopped.
2: Emergency bunkers. Now I'm as much a fan of people having a safe place to flee to during a disaster as anybody. But Beck has an annoying habit of saying, "Something's coming, I don't know if it will be tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or next decade, but I feel it, it's coming, it's real. Will you be ready, do you have someplace to go? "
3: Emergency food supply. As a Mormon we believe everybody ought to have a two year supply of food, just in case, that way you are in a position to help rather than ask for help in a disaster. This is related to the bunkers and gold points as well. He advertises for emergency food supply companies, but leads it in from his rhetoric about the collapse of the American nation. In short, when the apocalypse of undetermined chronology hits, you are going to need food. Or you know, you could stop the apocalypse from happening.
4: Liberals want all your rights, and want to live your life for you, they are also lying when they say they don't. Beck has for years now portrayed the progressive movement as an insidious, secretive, and patient movement that is slowly consolidating all power into the hands of the federal government, and when that is finally completed, they will inject Marxist, socialist, fascist doctrines that will be imposed on me and you. And why is he the only one saying anything about it? Because he's the only one who has found the hidden agenda, through his studying, and hopefully they won't be able to shut him up in time. Here comes the chalk board, where he can write out the whole sordidly complicated web of facts.
Take those ideas, hammer them into people over and over, then combine it with Sarah Palin's emphasis on the use of ones gun when one is threatened, "Don't retreat! Reload!" and sprinkle some Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment Solutions." Finally for good measure put on some Rush Limbaugh, who will tell you that every single thing the Democrats say is a lie designed to deceive and control you, and that our president is a fraud who is consciously trying to destroy the nation, and you have a situation like The Knoxville Church Shooting where somebody who was big into Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage takes a gun and blows as many people away as they can before dying, much like a suicide bomber. That was only three years ago or so.
If I must say it again, I will I guess. Liberals have their own set of troublesome voices and ideas that manifest in very real ways, like the idea that conservatives are less smart than they are, that's why they disagree. Their objections aren't to be taken seriously because again, they are just stupid. But that is completely beside the point. When somebody calls you violent, one of the easiest ways to avoid acknowledging the behavior is to say what is wrong with them, and why they have no business pointing out your flaws.
When Jesus said take the beam out of your own eye before pointing out the mote in your neighbors, he never intended for us to act like everybody has beams, so screw it, nothing can change.
Maybe heated conservative rhetoric hasn't directly lead to the death of anybody, but it's already in a place that is unhealthy. You can rally people together just fine with talk about the economy being in shambles, or the disconnect between smarty pants politicians and salt of the earth folk, or the never ending war in another country. People have been doing it for years. As Mr. Card said in an essay some time ago about fighting against certain liberal policies, "Put your gun away."
That's all I really want. A staunch second amendment supporter to say, "Put your guns away, we don't need them." No harm can come of it, but harm germinating in the mind of some slightly beside themselves person just might be prevented. There's no glory in preventing a problem like that because you can't prove it, but it's just stupid to always wait around for a person to start shooting before you say, "Maybe we should calm down a little."
I guess part of it is looking at what emotions politicians are trying to stir up. Fear and anger are easy ones to use but they are also dangerous.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I really hate to follow up your adult and compelling argument with a bit of fluff/snark.
but I will.
Sarah Palin and other conservatives are complaining that they are being blamed for the insane violent antic of a fringe lunatic. They say its not fair, not American, and not justified.
Guess they now know how Muslims in the US feel.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I guess part of it is looking at what emotions politicians are trying to stir up. Fear and anger are easy ones to use but they are also dangerous.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well said.
I guess part of it is looking at what emotions politicians are trying to stir up. Fear and anger are easy ones to use but they are also dangerous.
Isn't this exactly what the media and Democrats are now doing but in reverse? They are using this horrific event to try to stir up emotion, anger, and fear against conservatives, where little, if any, is warranted.
This is nothing new . Clinton blamed talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing, video games were blamed for Columbine, etc.
I have already said I agree the rhetoric should be toned down. I just don't agree with the hypocrisy. Putting crosshairs on a map is not as bad as saying someone should put a governor against a wall and shoot him.
Palin or Conservatives in general are not innocent at all, but Democrats are just as guilty.
BB, I enjoyed your post. I think that 99% of the people out there are not sheep, and can think for themselves. I listen to Glenn Beck on occasion and he does make me roll my eyes at times. Other times I agree with him. The first 10 minutes of his show on Monday he spoke about the shooting, and a lot of what he said was absolutely true. He brought up the rhetoric that both sides are using and says that everyone should follow the examples of Ghandi, Jesus, and Martin Luther King.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) 
