I was out of town over the weekend, and mostly in a no-news hole, so the news of the Arizona shootings came as a shock to me. And yesterday, I was stuck in weather-related traffic for hours upon hours, and that gave me plenty of time to think about what I wanted to say about it. Upon my return, I saw that KTK had already weighed in (I haven’t yet read his post), but I still wanted to give my own take. Then I saw that Paul Krugman already said just about everything I would have. Go forth and read.
Let me be clear on a couple of points: I’m not calling on any laws restricting violent rhetoric, or indeed, for any government action of any kind. What we need, instead, is for decent people everywhere to reject and condemn such rhetoric, even when it comes from people you’d normally otherwise agree with. Words have meanings, as the old expression goes, and you can’t be surprised if some nutjob actually acts on “don’t retreat, reload” type rhetoric.
Also, as faux-offended conservatives have been quick to point out, such rhetoric is not exclusive to the right. But while that’s technically true, saying that both sides are guilty of it is rather like saying Winona Ryder and Jeffrey Dahmer are both “criminals.” Such rhetoric has come almost exclusively from the political right (and the “tea party” wing in particular). When revolutionary, eliminationist rhetoric becomes the norm, can we really be all that surprised when somebody acts on it? We don’t yet know what motivated the Arizona shooter, but would it surprise you in the slightest if he turns out to be a big Glenn Beck fan?
One more final, depressing note: I drove across Texas and Arkansas yesterday, and flipped through a lot of talk radio in the process. Not only are right-wing talking heads not doing any soul-searching in the wake of this atrocity; they actually seem to be doubling down on that sort of rhetoric. I swear to you, I actually heard one of them say that if President Obama continues “his assault on free enterprise,” the people are going to be “grabbing torches and pitchforks.” Two days after apparently political violence took six lives and endangered several more.
As long as talking heads (right, left, or otherwise, but especially right in this case) continue to spew such hate without even a modicum of accountability, we can expect it to continue. So as Krugman says, this will be a good test for the mainstream right: will they distance themselves from the quasi-revolutionary provocateurs, or will they embrace them? Sadly, I’m not optimistic about which one they’ll choose.
UPDATE: A point of clarification, which I thought I stated somewhere above but apparently didn’t. Ultimately, the nutjob is responsible for his own actions, so I’m not saying that people who engage in eliminationist rhetoric are somehow directly responsible. At the same time, however, by consistently using such language, they’re creating an environment in which, for some at least, the previously-unthinkable becomes thinkable, and the previously-indefensible becomes defensible. As I said to Judd, the Becks and Palins aren’t to blame, but they aren’t blameless either.
Worse, though, are the fans who have elevated the Becks and Palins to the status of “people we ought to take seriously,” and that’s why I say the “right answer” is for ordinary people of all political stripes to condemn that nonsense early and often. Glenn Beck should be on an obscure public access channel, not a top-rated cable network; and that’s not about the network, but about the viewers. If the viewers stop viewing, the network will stop airing.
Judd
Kevin
Kevin T. Keith
leanleft
tgirsch
“We don’t yet know what motivated the Arizona shooter, but would it surprise you in the slightest if he turns out to be a big Glenn Beck fan?”
Motivation? The guy may have been paranoid about government takeovers, but his paranoia didn’t mirror Beck, Limbaugh, or the tea-party; it was clearly cooked up in his own delusional and psychotic head.
The whole “we don’t know his motivations” shpiel? Please. Have you read some of the stuff he wrote? Apart from ardent dislike of the government, he’s a rambling lunatic who doesn’t have a cogent perspective on what the current government is doing, but rather has concocted his own conspiracy theories.
Yes, when I first heard about this, I would not have been surprised to hear it was some nutso teabagger spewing some shit about Ayn Rand while firing into the crowd. I think most of the population was quite disappointed to discover that he wasn’t a Rand-driven-lunatic, or a Beck fan, that he appears to be basically a slobbering untermensch with a clinical mental illness, and hence is attempting to push him into the category of “right-wing nut”. After all, if you repeat something enough, eventually it will become true, wont it?
I can understand *some* of why you like Krugman, but this? Really? Flat out insinuating that the right is pandering to the desires of the mentally ill is moronic. Most people are decent people – or at least decent enough not to take a politician using a figure of speech like “armed and dangerous” literally.
This is what happens in politics. Remember when Bush was in office and a movie about assassinating him was brushed off by liberals”art”? Yeah, that’s not at all worse than the whole Palin/Target connection /snark.
Tgirsch, you too are stooping to the lowest level yet by trivializing the deaths that just occurred. President Obama is guilty of what you are accusing conservatives of doing so why aren’t you blaming him? Shouldn’t this all stop by starting at the top? Is it because liberal knee jerk reaction is to demonize whatever seriously takes away their political power? Everyone sees right through that.
How come Sara Jane Moore, a leftist, tried to Kill President Ford? Where was talk radio then? Where was Beck and Rush? Where was FOX news? Where was the Tea Party? Why have so many leftists and democrats assassinated or tried to assassinate presidents starting with John Wilkes Booth? Loughner was a registered independent whose classmate defined him as a leftwing pothead. Tgirsh, you seem like a fairly bright, albeit misguided, guy. Why do you insist on stinking up your blog with this nonsense?
You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing this terrible massacre.
Barbie:
Where, exactly, does Krugman “flat out insinuat[e] that the right is pandering to the mentally unstable?” Creating a political climate that increases the likelihood of some nutbag taking an action like this, which Krugman does accuse the right of, is not anywhere close to the same thing as pandering to the nutbags. Unless, of course, you think all of the fans/supporters of the Beck/Palin types are “mentally unstable,” in which case I can see how you’d draw that conclusion.
Regarding the “armed and dangerous” remark, it would be one thing if it happened in a vacuum; but it’s part of a much larger pattern among many on the right, and one which has absolutely no comparable mirror on the left. (An isolated remark here and there doesn’t count.)
Truth:
I eagerly await your link to President Obama’s remarks that are on par with “don’t retreat, reload,” or to his calling on his supporters to be “armed and dangerous” in support of his causes.
And in what way am I trivializing the deaths? By trying to figure out if there’s anything we can do to make such atrocities less likely? You’ll never eliminate the crazies, but you can at least try not to have an environment in which the horrible things those crazies do follow more or less directly from the rhetoric of mainstream politicians and pundits.
I encourage dissent and disagreement, but when that dissent routinely puts on the mantle of violent revolution, and routinely describes the people with whom you disagree as “enemies,” then that crosses a line, no matter what side you’re on.
Tgirsch, Here are a few instances. You are plain wrong to follow CNN on this one.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/10/not-presidential-ingraham-blasts-obama-for-enemies-comment.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65204220100608
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/
Very convenient how you ignored Sara Jane Moore, all those killer democrats and the fact that Loughner is a registered independent whose classmate defined him as a leftwing pothead. Why does Glen Beck spend $1 million on security every year? Why does O’Riely have round the clock protection? Is it to keep conservatives away from them? No! It’s to keep wacko liberals from hurting them.
You trivialized the deaths by trying to turn it into a blame the right issue. You continue to trivialize the deaths. Grow some compassion and stop the crap. It’s detrimental to the families.
Truth:
I’ve already stated that it’s wrong no matter which side doing it. That said, at best you’ve got one legitimate counterexample (the riff on the old expression about bringing a knife to a gunfight). Even if I gave you credit for all of them, they’re culled from a period of two and a half years, and don’t even come close to adding up to what you’d hear at a single Tea Party rally.
As for the actual acts of violence, the fact that you had to go back 40 years for an example doesn’t exactly help your point.
I don’t know, T, has the right ever made a movie about the assassination of a sitting president? The left did, and then, with the exception of two news channels and a mere handful of politicians, it was widely praised as “art” in the global community and showed in movie theaters nationwide. It’s not a campaign ad, but it’s political speech and encouraged targeted violence much more aggressively than anything we’ve seen or heard in the recent years.
Also, now that both the left and right are embroiled in calling the other side indecent for politicizing a tragedy, I’m gonna throw down and say the first thing I heard about this event was about an hour after it happened, when it was still breaking news, before we even knew who the shooter was, and NPR already had some pundit talking about Sarah Palin’s connection. It was very tactless. Within hours, the left was already trying to usurp the stage, taking advantage of the attention and emotions, to try to gain political points.
@tgirsch
Go give up and masturbate. Truth gave examples and you didn’t bother to refute them. The Left was “speaking truth to power” when Bush was POTUS and calling for his death. Craig Kilborn did it on his unfunny late night show. Randi Rhodes, who is as superficial as you seem to be, joked about killing GWB. The Left is full of hatred and if you say you’ve ever attended a Tea Party rally where bad language was used, I’d say you are a LIAR.
Tea Party rallies are well-behaved adult affairs compared to the hippie-lovedrug-radical rallies you evidently like to attend.
60% of Americans think the political connection is specious spurious nonsense cooked up by the lamestream media. About 30% think there’s some connection, but that he also might be a lefty loon, like you. Aren’t you glad the American people are smarter than you?
@Secretlives
I’m hoping that the USG severs all ties with the bogus NPR operation, which is nothing more than a DNC subsidiary. Soros and other crooks looking to short the dollar will be happy to pick up the tab for NPR’s salacious silliness.
Barbie:
OK, I have to admit that I’m coming up empty on the movie reference.
Survey says, XXX
Dave,
Here’s the original poll. The opinion that the shooter had political motivations is the most popular choice.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028218-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Here’s the type of article you are quoting. What is does is take a different question in the same poll that is more general and attributes it the specific case it is talking about – even though there was a specific question about that very fucking event that was asked in the same fucking poll.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/extremism_discounted_F08puvCEIDtTFjEvWlNSoK
Here’s an fictitious example of what happened here:
Me: Dave, do you like strawberry jam?
Dave: No.
Me: Do you like strawberries?
Dave: Yes.
My headline: Dave like’s strawberry jam.
(you know, because it’s made of strawberries, which he likes)
Now… one could argue that general political tensions and violent imagery plays no role in the promotion of real life violence YET this individual was politically motivated and driven to violence for other reasons – mainly his mental condition. That would be nuanced but theoretically plausible argument. …But, that’s not what you want to do. You just want to throw as much shit as you can against the wall and hope that something sticks. Well, time to grab another batch of poo.
Great news today, Gabrielle continues to remain in stable condition and continues to respond to commands. We have a miracle unfolding right in front of us. Let’s also remember the other victims and their families.
Tgirsch,
Thank you for making my point. There were assassins 40 years ago, hundreds of years ago and thousands of years ago, way before the Tea Party. Since you refuse to look at facts here is a bit about Sara Jane Moore…
” At the time, Moore had immersed herself in revolutionary leftwing politics.” http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=6783612
Here are some leftists that liked to kill presidents; Booth, Czolgosz, Oswald, Zangara, Collazo and Torresola. I did you a favor by not throwing Fromme into the mix. Although she was a leftist she was mentally ill.
Hmmmm… seems like leftists are the killers out there. Even that being the case I am not blaming the weekend murders on leftwing potheads. I am blaming them SOLELY where the blame lies; Jared Lee Loughner is responsible. All other rhetoric trivializes the atrocity that just unfolded.
So far all I hear in this blog from liberals is trash talk. Try some empathy.
secretlivesofscientists
Sorry, I tried googling the right making a movie about assassinating a president but apparently the left is the only place you find this type of trash. Your “After all, if you repeat something enough, eventually it will become true, wont it?” argument really hits the nail on the head. (Liberals with Cognitive Reactionary Disability Syndrome please note; I’m not condoning the misuse of a hammer here).
Truth:
So which is it? Revolutionary rhetoric does impact fringe people’s behavior, in which case Moore underscores my point? Or it doesn’t, in which case her immersion is irrelevant?
Oh, now you’re a international currency speculator too? Please, I’d love to hear your take on the devaluation and appreciation of currency and how such opinions are fractured along political lines. I’m not even sure you know what “shorting the dollar” even means, or why one would want to do it. You clearly think it has some sort of connection to patriotism, which is quite weird from jump street.
For what it’s worth, a lot of liberals also wish that NPR would be disassociated with the government. Public funding only accounts for less than 10% of the station’s operating budget anyway. Personally, I don’t think it really matters all that much except that in the case of which strawman gets to be erected.
Oh, and Barbie doesn’t really agree with you. I’m pretty sure she looks at most of your comments with largely the same WTF face as the rest of us do. She has some conservative leanings. She’s also intelligent, sensible, and expresses her thoughts with deliberate care to what she is saying; she’s not a random talking point generator. And, for that, she’s accepted here. I’d wager that she certainly has no idea what lefty elite “wanting to short the dollar” means? If you do, Barbie, I’d much rather hear you explain it than the Boca Burger.
Barbie – Re: the movie. Wasn’t “Death of a President” a British mockumentary? Perhaps, it wasn’t sufficiently criticized. I can grant that. But, it wasn’t a product of the mainstream American left, right? I mean, I could cite violent lefty tactics – but to purposes of apples to apples analogy, don’t they have to be within the mainstream, American, left. I mean, even somebody like Chomsky – who is nonviolent – wouldn’t even be applicable as a comparison, considering like most of the country doesn’t even know who he is. What we’d need here is like Al Gore brandish an HK.
John Wilkes Booth a leftist? Really? That would be the first time I’ve seen sympathizing with the Confederacy described as a “leftist” position.
But hey, if your point is that decades ago we had violent leftists, too, point taken. There are probably violent leftist nutjobs out there today, but they don’t have prominent mainstream liberals telling them to seek out “second amendment solutions” to their problems.
Yeah, funny how lefties like to forget about that movie.
“Death of a President” (2006) about assassinating Dubya.
Won something like 5 awards at the Toronto Film Festival and several others, the BBC creamed all over it. To be perfectly fair, it was British film, but it was, politically speaking, catering to the hateful desires of those on the left. Which is why I draw comparison to what your man-crush Krugman said (I believe he also used a term like catered to or pandered to the hateful desires of those on the right).
As for not being blameless, that implies that they should have to accept some blame, but blame for what, though? Someone needs to come up with a much more specific connection, and soon, because if I have to read “eliminationist rhetoric” or a variant on that term much more, it’s just going to enforce the thought that the left is trying to usurp the event to grab political power. I mean, specifically speaking, there needs to be more to fill the gap between the rhetoric and the actions of a lunatic. Otherwise, sure, yeah, the right has been using aggressive rhetoric. But I just don’t see that holding up the weight of all what is being said out there. The claim that their use of “eliminationist rhetoric” escalated tensions and ultimately created an atmosphere that fosters violent outbursts (or outburst; as far as I know, there have been no comparable eruptions of violence in the past several years) is about as strong of a claim as “hip-hop and rap music is responsible for making black people sell drugs” or whatever. It’s a really weak claim, and I can’t believe it’s become such a fervent media issue as it is right now. Actually, yes, I can believe that, but it’s stupid and it’s a product of people like Krugman trying to get as much political power out of a tragedy as possible.
Yeah, a British film that won accolades in Canada is exactly the same thing as Glenn Beck going on Fox News every day in the US. Uh huh.
In a sane world, events like this might make people of all political stripes say “Gee, maybe we shouldn’t fan the revolutionary flames so cavalierly,” or, “Perhaps I should tone it down a notch.” Obviously, we don’t live in a sane world.
And I don’t know about “out there,” but that’s really all I’m saying: tone it down a notch, people. How about rediscovering the “civil” part of civil discourse?
Re: hip-hop, apples and oranges. Music is not generally viewed as a call to action. Political rallies and political punditry are.
As a side note, Barbie, people like you should be more upset about the rhetoric of the Bachmanns and Palins out there than people like me. As an avid gun rights supporter, you shouldn’t be too thrilled with anyone ostensibly on your side routinely reinforcing negative stereotypes about the attitudes and intentions of gun owners.
TG,
Not to threadjack, but I think the rap analogy isn’t so apples to oranges, more like clementines to navels. Music is sometimes a call to action and sometimes it is not – and often that distinction is as much in the eyes of the consumer as the intent of the creator. The sociopolitical context of hip hop has been particularly pervasive. Certainly some hip hop is apolitical (though most is at least pro-capitalism), some is clearly and overtly political, and some may not fully intended to be, but given the product and context can be reasonably categorized as such.
Regardless, the more fundamental distinction is that music is art. I’m not going to jump through hoops to defend the Death of a President film,* but that too is an artistic medium, so that does create something of a distinction.
The other distinction is way the rapper and politician would defend his/her behavior. The rapper’s view is simply that he/she is reflecting existing realities in a literal sense through his/her lyrics – there really are kids getting murdered over colors, there really are women selling their daughters into prostitution for crack, etc. The politician, at the most generous, is viewing political events through impassioned eyes and then choosing to express them with violently metaphoric language. Creating the context of violence vs. reporting it.
I’m not trying to get into an academic discussion about these points, but I do think they represent the core differences re: the rap music analogy. And, I think that analogy (I used it before Barbie and wrote about it more extensively on the KTK thread.)
Finally, for those who do take this view, I hope you were singing the same tune when C. Dolores Tucker and Tipper Gore were riverdancing on the Death Row records in ’93.
*I will defend the notion that film is not a valid comparison to the rhetoric in question, since it was an artistic venture, produced by non-Americans, that achieved virtually non-existent awareness by those in mainstream America. I also haven’t totally jumped on the condemn the rhetoric bandwagon, so I’m not obligated to renounce it to keep a consistent opinion. I recognize the issues at hand here and understand the few drops of blood the purveyors of violent political imagery have on their hands, and I wouldn’t think it’s the worst thing in the world for the Palins of the world to apologize and vow to change their ways, but on balance I want to err heavily on the free speech side of things, recognizing that I can’t identify undeniable good that would come from pressure to censor political speech. Shame ‘em when they do it, but that’s about it, IMO.
Sorry, I erased half a sentence up there – I meant to say that in general, I think the violent imagery in music analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s close – more right on than off course, IMO. But that should have been obvious from the rest of the post.
digglahhh:
Shame ‘em when they do it, but that’s about it
That’s really all I’m saying here. You’ll notice that I explicitly said that I’m not calling for any kind of explicit censorship. I’m just saying that decent people shouldn’t give people who routinely engage in that kind of rhetoric the time of day.
Basically, when you have a megaphone and you know people are listening, you ought to choose your words somewhat carefully. (To be honest, I think that the Palins and Becks do choose their words carefully, which is even more dismaying.)
And just for some perspective, this is the kind of thing I’m talking about. Comparable stuff my exist from viable candidates on the left, but if it does, I haven’t seen it.
I never said it was the same thing, in fact, I explicitly said the film and the political ads were not the same thing. But considering that increasing numbers of people are more interested in whatever stupid john-kate-jersey drama is on TV than actually paying attention to politics, I think it’s fair to treat the boundaries between forms of media as fairly soft these days. Do you disagree?
“As a side note, Barbie, people like you should be more upset about the rhetoric of the Bachmanns and Palins out there than people like me. As an avid gun rights supporter, you shouldn’t be too thrilled with anyone ostensibly on your side routinely reinforcing negative stereotypes about the attitudes and intentions of gun owners.”
1. I don’t know who Bachmann is, and 2. I don’t care about Palin’s rhetoric. Also, what exactly do you mean by reinforcing stereotypes about the attitudes and intentions of gun owners? Nevermind, don’t answer that. See, this exactly is why I don’t care about this conversation (in the larger sense – the national dialogue, if you can even deign to call it that. Not our conversation. I like our conversation.) What exactly is being done that reinforces a negative stereotype – and which negative stereotype – about WHICH attitudes and intentions of WHICH gun owners? Loughner as reinforcing a stereotype? I think it is absurd to even consider a deranged psycho as out of his mind as Loughner as a reflection on gun owners. I make a practice of not paying much mind to the attitudes and intentions of people who are criminally insane as well as delusional and paranoid to the point that he was because it’s a waste of my time, and also because crazies and the actions/attitudes/intentions of crazies shouldn’t be used as a barometer for ANYTHING.
“In a sane world, events like this might make people of all political stripes say “Gee, maybe we shouldn’t fan the revolutionary flames so cavalierly,” or, “Perhaps I should tone it down a notch.” Obviously, we don’t live in a sane world.”
Buck up, chief. This is such a shitstorm that I’m pretty sure rhetoric will most certainly be toned down in the future anyways, because, regardless of whether or not rhetoric had anything to do with Loughner, it’s plain to see that anyone who makes comments that could be interpreted as a call to violence will surely be thrown into the middle of the ire the next time some lunatic does something like this, and obviously no politician wants that, so I don’t understand why you all aren’t just congratulating yourselves on a job well done, because the objective of getting the rhetoric toned down, if that really was the objective (and not making trying to get the right to take some -any – blame for the actions of a lunatic), is surely going to be accomplished by this.
And, as a gun owner, I’m sure we gun owners will do what we always do. We’ll point out that plenty of good law-abiding citizens all over the place carry guns every goddamn day and have somehow figured out how to not murder people. But that’s not really the issue here, is it? The issue is what law needs to get put in place to prevent this kind of stuff, and that’s where we enter choppy waters. Nobody is really worried about the good law-abiding citizens. We’re worried about crazies. The problem with gun laws has to do with their efficacy being restricted to people who abide by laws. Crazy people and criminals don’t give a rats ass about what the laws say. Loughner planned an assassination and disregarded those minor laws we have against killing people (snark), just like criminals plan rapes, murders, robberies, you name it, knowing full well that what they are doing is against the law. But they do it anyways because they want to and sometimes because they believe they can get away with it.
I’m ok with banning extended magazines for handguns. A Glock-19 carries 15 rounds in the regular mag, I think. And that’s plenty for a self-protection gun. My carry gun holds 8 rounds. That’s all I’m willing to say on that at this point.
I’m not talking about Lougher reinforcing stereotypes. I’m talking about the Palins and the Bachmanns reinforcing stereotypes. As to what those are, allow me to explain. To a LOT of people outside the gunnie inner circle, gun rights advocates (especially the vocal ones) are widely perceived as antisocial nuts with paranoid delusions; as “the government is out to get me (personally)/the revolution is coming soon” types, not too far away from the tinfoil hat types.
Basically, they’re perceived like this.
So when you have Sarah Palin saying stuff like “don’t retreat, reload,” and putting targeted districts in gun sights on her web site, she’s absolutely reinforcing that negative stereotype.
“This is such a shitstorm that I’m pretty sure rhetoric will most certainly be toned down in the future anyways”
The initial indications aren’t good. As I said, from my admittedly small sample on Monday, it seemed that right-wing talk radio was doubling down on the rhetoric.
Re: Bachmann, ask Judd. I just sent him a fairly tame sample, which caused him to lose a fair-sized chunk of what little faith he has left in the American people.
Also, I’m on record saying I don’t think more restrictive gun laws would in any way be effective. In fact, this post has absolutely nothing to do with government action of any kind. It’s about demanding that our politicians and pundits — ALL of them — cut that shit out, with “that shit” being vilifying those who disagree with them and framing their points using violent and revolutionary language.
In other words, I really don’t think we disagree here as much as you think we do.
Barbie,
But considering that increasing numbers of people are more interested in whatever stupid john-kate-jersey drama is on TV than actually paying attention to politics, I think it’s fair to treat the boundaries between forms of media as fairly soft these days. Do you disagree?
I’m not sure I follow. Because people watch vapid, contrived shows where real life people are typecast into predefined roles to play out archetypal sticom situations as opposed to ten years ago when people watched professional actors plays out the same archetypal situations, but in a more obviously staged and “fake” fashion, the difference between an American political commentator and candidate analyzing political events or advancing her political/profession agenda and a foreign comedy film is inperceptible to the American public?
How does what the top TV shows are matter, and when did the people pay enough attention to politics that the boundaries should have remained hard?
I’m not trying to be snarky, I just don’t understand how one has to do with the other.
TG,
[gun advocates being stereotyped as] the government is out to get me (personally)/the revolution is coming soon” types
Wouldn’t the fact that they’d be taking direction from an ex-candidate for VPOTUS and somebody who still pretty clearly holds politcal aspirations be something of a contradiction there? This is not entirely a critique on your post but perhaps more of a comment about the stereotypes. Shouldn’t even the stereotypes move a bit, no that so many of the “fear the government” types are organizing themselves into a political movement and trying to become the government?
I’m just saying that decent people shouldn’t give people who routinely engage in that kind of rhetoric the time of day.
Just to raise the point – is there never a place for revolutionary politics? Our nation was founded on such? The Black Panthers, Che Guevara, Ward Churchill – is any of this speech is ever acceptable? Or, are the rules a bit different closer to the “margins?”
Finally, is it possible we use the term “violence” or “violent” a bit too narrowly. Violence is the infliction of harm on others. Promoting violence doesn’t only happen in terms of language, imagery, or physical exertions of force. Economic sanctions are violent, the lack of response to Katrina was violent – public policy and economic interventions are often violent. A lack of universal healthcare knowingly inflicts harm and death on people. If we’re going to have a discussion about violence in politics, then let’s not limit it to Sarah Palin’s clip art.
Digg:
Palin is as popular as she is with that crowd precisely because she’s perceived (absurdly, in my view) as an outsider, a perception she intentionally fosters.
But among a lot of gunnies I’ve met (thankfully not the ones who generally comment here), there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance — they’re simultaneously extremely libertarian and extremely authoritarian, which I have a hard time getting my head around.
WRT whether violent rhetoric is ever okay, I’ll admit that this is a difficult question; but I lean toward “almost never.” This is largely because it’s not 1776 any more, and I can think of a modern example of where violent rhetoric or actions have accomplished much of anything productive. (MLK got a lot more done than Malcolm X, it seems to me, even if the latter was more appealing in some sectors.)
Finally, I flatly reject your anarcho-capitalist-like definition of “violence,” where pretty much everything, including negligence, is somehow an act of “violence.”
Feel free to treat this whole post as rhetorical –
Should we not consider the lack of universal healthcare a violent policy, or the “war on drugs” the promotion of violence? Sure, it there’s a slippery slope here – the “reaction to Katrina is violence” is a step removed from these examples, but economic violence is not to be dismissed as a fringe political science construct. I think it’s a lot more open to interpretation – there’s negligence, and then there’s criminal negiglence, so to speak.
The issue also isn’t what MLK accomplsihed versus what Malcolm X accomplished. The issue is whether the was value to Malcolm X’s perspectives and whether “decent people” should have taken him seriously or have given him a platform. Is there space for Malcolm X in the political debate? This question raises a whole host of even more difficult follow-up questions.
I won’t threadjack with by trying to open a large discussion on black radical politcs, but I don’t think it’s an open and shut decision that Malcolm X could not have possibly done more for the African American community as a whole in the long term.
But, again, that’s not the point. Should anybody who advocates political violence be automatically excluded from “the discussion?” Political violence is enacted all the time, especially on an international stage. If you disregard everybody who has ever voted for a political war, turned a blind eye to political assassinations, coups, black ops, – if we as “decent people” deny them voice – who is left with a voice? Non-violent politics is an oxymoron. The grappling for the control of the instruments of violence, and the power to utilize them or not on any people. nations, etc. including your own is as intrinsic to politics as anything can be.
Stepping down from my soap box, I’ll readily concede that encouraging ordinary citizens to engage in disengaged, and frankly haphazard acts of political violence in general is irresponsible and a step away from an organized “revolution” of sorts.
But isn’t the idea that violence can’t totally, absolutely, forever be foreclosed from civilan political tactics even part of the foundation of the second ammendment? Pacifism is the preferred choice, but is rendered a losing proposition without the threat of violence when the opposition controls the means of violence and has demonstrated itself as willing to deploy it.
The $64,000 question is what state must be reached to “justify” playing that last card. The difficulty lies in the notion that the point of no return is different for different people – so when do you condemn outright and when do you grant that such an opinion is a legitimately understandable reaction and therefore deserving of inclusion in the larger debate around the associated issues.
Should people who advocate for violence, or use violent/revolutionary rhetoric, be excluded from the discussion? No. But should they be treated as mainstream and fawned over? Also no.
Regarding what does and does not constitute “violence,” it’s something I’ve given a lot of thought to lately because of debates with libertarian and anarcho-capitalist types who are all gaga over the “non-aggression principle.” The gist is that it’s always immoral to initiate aggression, but it’s okay to retaliate against aggression. The fallout here is that if you define “aggression” broadly enough, you can justify your own aggression — often in the form of actual violence — in response to just about anything. Taxation is theft/robbery, which is an act of “violence” against me, which therefore justifies me engaging in violence against the government. My neighbor painted his house an ugly color, which lowers my property value — he has engaged in an action that reduces my wealth, so that’s really no different than if he had stolen from me, and that’s an act of “violence” against me, and I can meet that “violence” with [actual] violence of my own. That’s a dangerous road to go down, and an alarming number of people take it seriously (without necessarily thinking through those implications).
Now I’m normally not terribly compelled by slippery slope arguments; but at the same time, I still think you need to choose your words carefully, especially when you have a megaphone. There may be a time and a place for revolutionary rhetoric, but we’re nowhere near that point now, at least not as far as I can tell. You could make a much better case for it during the era of segregation, say, but even then, I’m not convinced that it was all that effective.
Ultimately, I’m not saying that we should deny a voice to anyone, even those who engage in violent/revolutionary rhetoric. What I’m saying is that decent people ought to deny them credibility when that rhetoric is so obviously overwrought.
There’s no easy answer to your $64,000 question (hence the dollar value, which doesn’t amount to much these days), but I think it’s pretty fair to say that we’re not even remotely close to that state.
That’s a thoughtful and fair response. And, I sympathize with the non-aggression principle and the frustration with the way others utilize it.
More good news; all victims remaining in the hospital are improving and some are even being released. Gabrielle opens both eyes, smiles at her husband and rubbed his neck yesterday.
What the people of Tucson are feeling is empathy and concern for the victims while dealing with the shock and anger of the situation. Tucsonans want all to heal and want justice for the perpetrator.
Tgirsch
“So which is it? Revolutionary rhetoric does impact fringe people’s behavior, in which case Moore underscores my point? Or it doesn’t, in which case her immersion is irrelevant?”
Sigh… You fail to understand because you fail to look at all possibilities. It’s neither! It’s solely the actions of Sara Jane Moore and she is solely responsible for them. Why would you want to defend a scum-bag like Loughner, especially using the age old left wing “everyone is a victim” defense? The left has tried very hard to demonize the tea party because they are afraid of people standing up and speaking out against liberal ideology and against wasting your money and my money to the tune of trillions of dollars.
I have shown you that a) Members of the left kill people and act out with rage and violence. Indeed, one of the people shot in this massacre, a democrat activist, threatened to kill a member of the tea party the other day and was arrested in Tucson. Funny how no one here noticed that! b) Loughner was described by a classmate as a left-wing pot head. c) Liberals see the impact the tea party made on the last election and it scares them. They, along with you, will stoop so low as to cheapen the deaths of many good people by politicizing the massacre. Why? Because that’s all they have left. Their policies and massive spending are not working. If you can’t beat them with ideology then attack them with pure crap. d) It doesn’t matter what Loughner’s political persuasion is… He is solely responsible.
digglahhh
“I sympathize with the non-aggression principle…”
Really? Anyone notice the f-bomb attack you unleashed on me, a tactic I haven’t seen used since 7th grade? Nope, no aggression there.
I hate to burst your bubble, Barbie, but the “tea party” is nothing new. They are similar to the “Know Nothings” of the 19th Century and, once again, I believe that they belong on the back fold-in page of MAD magazine.
“No new taxes” is hardly new. The military build-up of the last ten years bills have come due. I think it is time that
the American people buck up and at least have a War Bond campaign. No wars can continually run on credit and
no social programs can continually run on credit. So let us
reason together and start paying the taxes to run the government and social security, et al. Investing in the
future is great policy. What is wrong with it?
We need to get our factories and infrastructure going
again and start building up viable eco-friendly energy
sources. The solar alternative and electric vehicles are
good steps in the right directions, as is wind power.
Right now, alternative energy should be a bi-partisan
issue which all can agree too.
The infighting has gotten a bunch of neophytes into Congress in the House of Representatives. It remains
iffy to me, and others, as to whether they can govern. Lately all I’ve heard is just divisive deceitful rhetoric , by the new Republican-led House , and seen attempts to scuttle funding for bi-partisan health legislation. The Affordable Health Care Act is probably the
best piece of bi-partisan legislation to come out of congress
in 40 some odd years. There is a tremendous amount
of cost saving measures built into the Act.
No one is thinking everything will be “hunky-dory” overnight.
Moreover, it is time that the left wing and the right wing
work together and help the country to fly straight. I
am a moderate and am very pleased to pay my fair share
of taxes. We are still in the tail end of the Great Recession
and there are signs of a re-awakening of the American Spirit. That means ALL Americans. We are in this thing
together. As LBJ once said: “Don’t spit in the soup, we all gotta eat”.
So, having never heard of Moore (I’m to young to care about Gerald Ford.), I did some reading. She appears to have been one of the final products of COINTELPRO, and not entirely sane at that. Not exactly an argument that the main-stream left is dangerous.
By the way, I can’t be the only one suspecting that the asshole with the self-righteous screenname is Fr*d back from his hiatus. Can we ban his lying ass again once that’s confirmed?
Dan M. who are you to call me an asshole? Don’t you see your type of hatred is what killed 5 good people in Tucson? You must make a living as a 7th grade schoolyard bully. Well quite frankly I’m not impressed. Your quick use of the term shows you to be very self righteous, you should work on that. You also called me a lying ass while dissing the fact that Sara Jane Moore was a leftist. Not only do you continue to speak like you are in 7th grade but your failure to look at history explains why you fall so easily into liberal thinking. Heck, if you continue to ignore facts someday the only thing you will have left is running to your mommy.
I’m not surprised liberals out there want to ignore Sara Jane Moore. While the tea party looks at facts and reaches a conclusion, liberals like to take a conclusion and make up facts. I’m also not surprised guys like Dan M., while having a rich vocabulary, ignore that a Tucson democrat activist that was shot during the massacre was arrested for threatening to kill a tea party member. I’m sure there are reasons Dan M. can’t remember that far back too
It’s ok Dan M., asking to ban someone is always a good liberal argument, I will give you that much.
Try thinking about the victims of the massacre for a change. People in Tucson want the hatred to go away.
The tone is slightly different and the responses are slightly longer – I’ve been somewhat suspicious that it’s Fred on a return from banned camp, but I’m not as certain as I was in his previous few iterations. What’s most similar is his omnipresence. We’ve had plenty of trolls in our day, but most are just predatorial, they pop up for certain issues, or perform drive-by trolling, attack a few times and then move along. Fred and Truth are more like parasites, as they thrive off the productive energy of others, and that is the biggest source of my suspicion.
Truth and Fred are different trolls of different types. There’s almost a point in engaging with Truth. Almost. I believe Truth to be a reincarnation of a different, non-Fred troll from the wayback machine.
Okay, I’ll buy that Troof isn’t Fr*d. Digg’s right that he writes longer comments than him, though that was true to a more limited degree when Fr*d was trying to masquerade.
Troof, I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear; I was only asking that Fr*d be banned, not you if you are not him. He’s already been well established as a lying ass, and it was only him to whom I intended that description.
On the other hand, you most certainly are a self-righteous asshole for choosing as your screenname a single common noun that cannot by syntactically distinguished from an evaluative term. The equivalent IRL would be Mr. Smith claiming to be “John Smith, Awesome; like John Smith, Jr, but not” and then insisting that everyone use the suffix because Smith is so common a name. Moreover, your choice is basically exploitive in that there are in fact strong societal norms, even on the internet, and among those is the presumption of choose in screenname. You’re abusing that norm, which makes you an asshole. If you honestly didn’t know that, then I’ll readily admit I was wrong when you change to a name that doesn’t do so. Until then, you get an infantile label for your infantile behavior.
As for Moore, I didn’t claim she wasn’t leftist; I claimed she wasn’t part of the mainstream left. Nobody thinks Loughner was part of the mainstream right, either, but the effects of the mainstream right’s policies, such as the availability of the large-capacity magazine, are relevant to what he did. Additionally, a lot of people have taken the opportunity to discuss the mainstream right’s punditry, but there’s no consensus that that had a causative effect on Loughner.
As for your other claim of a dangerous Democrat, I didn’t repudiate it because you didn’t bother to actually cite whatever the hell you were talking about; I have no obligation to do your work for you. But since you’re apparently not Fr*d, I’ll cut you a little slack and look it up. Apparently, you’re talking about James Eric Fuller. The only description I’ve dug of him claims that he pointed a camera at someone and said “You’re dead.”, and was then removed from the otherwise public venue (which is not the same as being arrested).
There’s room for debate as to whether that constitutes a credible threat of violence, but I’m happy to assume for the moment that it warrants removal from a public space. But then we need to apply that standard to right-wing pundits as well. Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck are immediately out of a job, and Bill O’Reilly (even without this assumed standard) should be under arrest for his incitement to the assassination of George Tiller. Is this really the threshold you want to apply?
Great news out of Houston today, Gabrielle has been upgraded to GOOD condition. The good people that were also shot all continue to improve. That is the REAL issue here folks.
Digglahhh
All the name calling on earth, “troll”, “parasite”, won’t change that your post is something about nothing. Your definition of troll broken down simply means someone you disagree with. Oh well, if you can’t articulate an argument I suppose the 8th grade tactic of name calling and cussing is always a good alternative for a liberal. Someday when you get a job you will witness what the “productive energy of others” really is.
Tgirsch
Thanks for one of the nicer things you have ever said about me. I look forward to moving up another notch in your book from “almost” to “not quite” someday. Let me know if you are ever in Tucson, if my schedule permits, I will buy you a decent Mexican food lunch.
Dan M.
There he goes again with all that 7th grade language. Great news; the bell is ringing and 1) Your mom cut the crusts off your peanut butter and jelly sandwich 2) Digglahhh’s meeting you in the school yard and he’s gonna teach you some better cuss words.
Now on to my handle, as you are apparently so fixated on it. NO! You can’t have it! I already took it so get over it! I find it amusing that your version of strong societal norms on the internet include 7th grade behaviors such as calling names and cussing. By the way, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that reversing the last 2 letters of your handle gives a damn.
Hmmm… deep into the 3rd post, out of the previous 3 postings, Truth finally finds someone talking about the actual topic. “…there’s no consensus that that had a causative effect on Loughner” Congratulations Dan M., you’re starting to get it! That is what I have been showing you all along; Loughner IS solely responsible for his actions, he doesn’t need to be defended by liberals saying someone else made him do it.
Yes, I have been talking about James Eric Fuller. I stand corrected as to whether he was arrested, MSNBC calls it “taken into custody” and “involuntarily committed” “http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41094534/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ .
“You’re dead” is the clearest example of a threat posted YET in this topic, and it was a Democrat activist doing it. This blows all other supposed examples of threats out of the water and quashes the entire premise of the topic. It hasn’t gone unnoticed that you attacked me for not citing and then accuse Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck WITHOUT CITING ANYTHING they have said. I’m waiting Dan M., cite away and show examples where one of these is ACTUALLY making a threat. Don’t forget to keep it in context. Liberals!
Think back to Loughner for a moment, Scott Roeder is solely responsible for his actions too. He doesn’t need to be defended by you saying Bill O’Reilly made him do it! The biggest travesty in this case is that Scott Roeder was sentenced to life in prison and not executed.
Fred
I had a belly laugh (that’s a LOL to the 7th and 8th graders out there) when I saw everyone here scurrying like scared mice worried that Fred must be lurking. Look at the energy being generated by the liberals, worried about Fred, when a conservative posts. You guys are spending more time worrying about Fred than you are responding. Fred has you very worked up about Fred even when Fred is not there. Don’t you see this? I think your best bet would be to simply let Fred speak; he has you over a barrel when you don’t.
Honestly people, I have seen Fred post and his postings had far more meat to them than the previous 3 I read. I know you simply want to shut out all conservative opinion but the real world doesn’t work that way. Just look at the last election.
Well, see ya later!
Troof,
Ya know, if you’re going to tell somebody to fuck off, at least have the decency and maturity to actually use the words “fuck off”.
No, no, I get it; it’s a cultural mismatch thing. You come from some place where is not amazingly disrespectful to call a public figure by their first name like you were their mother or something.
Let me see if I can get this translation right: “Bless your heart. I’ll pray for you.”
Dan M.
I see you’re back from lunch and learned some new words. Dan M. is demonstrating that liberals can certainly dish it out but they can’t take it. I really never considered the F-word to be mature.
Re-read my post and stop ignoring your lack of citing and my straight forward addressing of the issues you presented.
I realize you have run out of arguments but really… bad language doesn’t impress anyone here.
I’m still waiting for you to cite what you said.
–Truth
Truth:
That’s funny coming from someone who hasn’t sourced anything he’s cited here.
Tgirsch,
You are wrong again and that’s what’s funny.
Most of the time people on this blog say something without sourcing it. Sometimes they source it. When asked to, I’m not afraid to source something. You are wrong saying I haven’t sourced anything. Look at my larger post a few posts back and you will see I sourced MSNBC saying James Eric Fuller was “taken into custody” and “involuntarily committed”. On the same topic, which was posted by KTK before you did, I sourced several places showing how President Obama uses the same type of language you accused the right of using which supposedly drove Loughner to kill people. I provided you with a list of killer leftists. You either didn’t read it or chose to ignore it.
I won’t ask you to take it back Tgirsch, I’m happy to simply show inconsistencies liberals make. Dan M. was easy; you are a bit craftier.
My challenge to Dan M. to source Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck threatening to kill anybody still stands. He is the one who actually started this bit. I understand if he doesn’t find anything other than a huge stretch taken out of context and chooses not to source what he said.
OK, so once in a great while you actually back up something you write. Mea culpa. You rarely cite, not never.
Oh, and regarding Coulter, perhaps you’re forgetting about the bomb the NY Times incident, or the time she said that the only effective way to talk to liberals was with a baseball bat. Nope, no incitement there, no sir!
Truth,
1. I do have a job, a quite successful one. I have no doubt that I do a lot better than you do, by any measure of what doing better means to you. Funny, you mention jobs and Tuscon, because a friend of mine actually just asked me if I could help her fill a job opening that requires a person work out of Tuscon. Maybe if you weren’t a such a dick, I could help you become gainfully employed as well. (I don’t work in HR or anything, she just asked me as a favor, knowing that I have relevant contacts. Those contacts have heard me curse; they’re adults, they don’t mind.)
2. “…there’s no consensus that that had a causative effect on Loughner
There was no disagreement here. None of us, not me, not KTK, not TG, not Dan, not one of us, argued that there was. If this is the point you’ve been trying to hammer home, congratulations on wasting your time and welcome to two weeks ago. All the following discussion was dealing with meta-issues.
But, my real question is whether you actually believe what you’re selling. What is your opinion regarding the pressure on MTV to censor their recently premiered (and stolen from the UK) show Skins? What was your position on Ice T and Body Count’s Cop Killer back in ’92?
What about Malcolm X’s “by any means necessary” speech. Were/are you cool with that?
These questions are not rhetorical. I’m interested in your position on these instances of the speech as well.
3. Unless you are Fred, you don’t know who Fred is. You don’t go back long enough on this blog to get those references. I know this because other references to LL discussions and dare I even say private jokes have consistently gone right over your head.
Misspelled Tucson up there, my bad.
digglahhh:
Actually, there were a couple of threads from hell back during the 2008 election cycle when Truth and Fred were both commenting. So he has, in fact, encountered Fred. (I remember, because I lost a modicum of respect for Truth when he pretended Fred was adding any substance.)
Jogs my memory a bit, and I vaguely remember it. No guarantee they are the same person though, right? That’s one of the problems with generic, self-righteous handles, they’re not really defining. You can be pseudononymous and still be uniquely identifiable, but not you call yourself “Truth,” “Yankee fan,” or “hot mom.”
As one of the overlords of the blog, I can tell you with confidence that Truth is not Fred, and that this Truth is the same guy that has been coming here for literally years. He dates back at least to 2004, in fact. He actually predates Fred by quite a while.
See, for example, here:
http://leanleft.com/2004/02/27/more-on-the-passion-a-look-at-where-it-differs-from-the-gospels-on-jews/
And you’ll note that by this time, I was already plenty familiar with him, enough to discourage people from trying to actually reason with him.
You’ll also note that he’s gotten worse in the intervening time.
Well, crap. This seems like a pretty abject lesson on the topic at hand.
Tgirsch
“perhaps youre forgetting about the bomb the NY Times incident, or the time she said that the only effective way to talk to liberals was with a baseball bat” Not forgetting, simply never heard of it. If you wish to pursue it please remember to keep it in context. I notice you are now fighting Dan M.s battles for him, I can see why… He can’t provide sources. Wait a minute, are you his dad?
And ah yes, this isn’t the first time we have engaged. I remember during the Passion argument, which you are bringing up, that you ended sending $25 to the Red Cross because you failed to come through on our wager.
Digglahhh
Last time you talked to me you said “This is my last response to you…” Which way is it, are you or aren’t you going to? You seem to say one thing and then do another.
I am actually happy you are gainfully employed. I wouldn’t wish that on anybody. I guess my conjecture was based on the way you were talking I felt you were too young to be working. I don’t need a job thank you. Mine is very solid with great benefits, pay and bonus. I am more concerned with keeping liberals’ hands off of my money.
I see now you called me a dick; what is your job? Bully? Sorry but I’m still not impressed. Try this as an experiment; next time you are getting gas, if the guy getting gas in front of you is your own size, or bigger, call him a dick and then report back to all of us.
“opinion regarding the pressure on MTV to censor” If someone wants to boycott MTV that’s fine with me. Look around, both the right and left boycott all the time. That’s a by-product of living in a free country. Would I watch that show? Looks like crap to me, no thanks.
“What was your position on Ice T and Body Count’s Cop Killer back in ’92?” I vaguely remember that one. It’s not anything I would write or listen to. Didn’t IceT remove it from his album? Again, with free speech a record like that can be released and people can protest it.
“What about Malcolm X’s “by any means necessary” speech. Were/are you cool with that?” I have never heard of it up until you brought it up. Malcolm X can say whatever he wants. Did he threaten to kill someone?
Misspelled Tucson? Not unusual. I believe it is Native American in origin and the pronunciation would lead people to believe the c and s should be inverted.
Dan M.
My challenge to Dan M. to source Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck threatening to kill anybody still stands.
Fred
See what I mean? They spend more time worried about keeping you banned than they would spend answering you. Every time the wind cries Mary they think Fred is singing Jimmy Hendrix.
I actually did end up seeing the movie, and have a lot of thoughts about it. One of these days, I’ll get around to writing them down.
“I notice you are now fighting Dan M.s battles for him … are you his dad?”
And you wonder why we accuse you of immaturity. Why not just go with “I know you are, but what am I?”
Anyway, Coulter exhibit A.
You’ve also moved the goal posts; Dan M never said “Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck threatened to kill someone.” I defy you to show us where he did. (I notice that you tacitly conceded the point on O’Reilly, so good on you for that.)
Regarding your little proposed experiment, you indicate that I’m some sort of bully who wouldn’t have the gaul to pick on or provoke anybody who I couldn’t easily crush, yet I clearly have no problem provoking and picking on you, so I’ll take that as your tacit admission of your comparative weakness.
Tgirsh
And you DID send $25 to the Red Cross thank you.
I was talking to Dan M. about Fuller threatening to kill someone and he brought up Coulter, Beck and O’Reilly. I have no idea what O’Reilly said, I simply responded about the killer of Tiller. Isn’t that what this is about after all, a killer? You started this whole thing by defending Loughner’s actions. I stand by my assertion you and KTK have sunk your blog to a new low.
Your reference wasn’t clear as to whether Coulter was being satirical; after all she is extremely satirical when it comes to liberals. That’s one of the things I like about her. What your reference did do is prove EVERYONE on both sides talk this way so the liberal viewpoint that the tea party drove Loughner to do this is nothing but a slap in the face to everyone affected by the massacre. Your reference backs up everything I have been saying, thank you.
Sorry, based on the way Dan M. was talking to me I couldn’t help but take another poke at him. I shouldn’t drag you into it. That doesn’t change the fact that you are fighting his battles for him.
Digglahhh
Uhhh… How can I put this delicately? Perhaps you should get some therapy. How many times do I need to pull you back on topic?
Dan M.
References?
I defy you to identify an instance of me defending Lougher’s actions. That’s libel, dude.
Also, satire is a convenient if ultimately unconvinving excuse for Coulter. But I suppose if you want to go on record saying that Coulter neither wants nor expects anyone to take her seriously, feel free. When asked about the NYT remark after the fact, she doubled down, so I question the idea that she was somehow only kidding.
Troof,
Sorry, after you told us all that you had no interest it stopping your abuse of community norms and also don’t know how to talk to adults, I figured you were done making noise in our direction. My mistake.
As for citing events, I find … interesting your inability to distinguish between naming people who regularly show up in national media and not naming whose previous public exposure, as far as I can grub up, was showing up to local town-hall meetings and having a small online profile.
Your further inability to distinguish “credible thread of violence” and “death threat” is, well, I suppose less surprising in context. But in Beck’s case, it’s not that important, because he does in fact want to kill people.
On the other hand it does look likely that although O’Reilly wanted to commit some unspecified degree of assault on Tiller, and then spent half a decade slandering him on national television, he may not actually have been the one who first directed Roader to Tiller as a target.
Ugh, excuse me while I channel Digg for my typography. (Though I love the idea of needing enough Gaul to do something. Sorry, now I’m just Picting on you.)
Dan M:
Your, umm, dig against Digg’s typography should really include an asterix.
Haven’t we gotten past this sort of thing, Frankly?
Did you follow the link?
*grin* didn’t need to, Frankly.
Dan M
You are the one going on about community norms. I merely pointed out that yours apparently include cussing and calling people names. Sorry, I don’t buy into your version.
“As for citing events, I… blah blah blah” Tgirsch is the one who said “When revolutionary, eliminationist rhetoric becomes the norm, can we really be all that surprised when somebody acts on it?” We don’t yet know what motivated the Arizona shooter, but would it surprise you in the slightest if he turns out to be a big Glenn Beck fan?.” This has been shown to be completely wrong.
Your Beck link; I asked for context. You gave me a great sound bite but zero context. Show me the 5 minutes before and after he said that and we can then BOTH be clear what he was talking about.
O’Reilly link; He calls people out all the time; in this case Tiller as a late term abortionist. Just because he called Geithner out as a tax cheat doesn’t mean he wants someone to kill him. He also called Tiller a baby killer. Newsflash – Abortions kill babies. I Googled “late term abortionists” and got 308,000 hits. Did O’Reilly invent this? As I said; the killer of Tiller should have been executed. He is solely responsible. We call that “personal responsibility”.
Should all the negative rhetoric stop on both sides? Absolutely. It needs to start at the top with President Obama, it’s not a one sided thing. Nonetheless, Loughner is solely responsible for the killing spree.
Tgirsch
see number 3
• defending is a form of:
de•fend Verb /diˈfend/
o defended past participle; defends 3rd person singular present; defending present participle; defended past tense
2. Resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger
we shall defend our country, whatever the cost
3. Speak or write in favor of (an action or person); attempt to justify
You said “When revolutionary, eliminationist rhetoric becomes the norm, can we really be all that surprised when somebody acts on it?” We don’t yet know what motivated the Arizona shooter, but would it surprise you in the slightest if he turns out to be a big Glenn Beck fan?”.
Truth:
Nice try, but in no way does what I wrote justify, excuse, or cast a favorable light on what the shooter did. In fact, I also wrote, “Ultimately, the nutjob is responsible for his own actions,” which stands in direct contradiction to your assertion that I somehow “defended” him. And even if I hadn’t written that, it’s laughable to claim that what you quoted amounts to any sort of defense of Lougher’s actions. It was a condemnation of the use of violent rhetoric, precisely because that rhetoric could lead to actual acts of violence. If the acts of violence were somehow okay, why would I denounce the rhetoric?
On that count, I believe you owe me a retraction and an apology.
And when you say that “This has been shown to be completely wrong,” that’s only half true. We now know that the shooter was not a Beck fan. That doesn’t change the fact that it would have been utterly unsurprising if he had been. (In fact, many were surprised when it turned out he wasn’t.)
Newsflash! If there’s a baby involved, it’s not abortion! Abortion kills fetuses or embryos. Just because you would also have slandered Tiller doesn’t make the slander true.
Further, it would be slander to call a doctor a “child-killer” for saving the life of one of two conjoined twins by killing the other one, and in that case both twins are people! Tiller spent his time saving lives of women who would have otherwise died of their pregnancies; to call him a “baby killer”, even if you are in fact too stupid to know that there are no babies involved, is an outright lie.
That lie by O’Reilly (and others) was very likely to incite any number of violent criminals to assault Tiller; it’s not like O’Reilly could have been ignorant of the well-established system of domestic terrorists who had been harrassing, assaulting, and killing health care providers for decades. The responsibility of those criminals for their own crimes does not excuse O’Reilly’s reckless disregard for Tiller’s safety in making him the particular target of those crimes. The possibility (which I can’t even confirm) that Roeder had learnt of Tiller prior to O’Reilly’s murderous libel is completely immaterial to O’Reilly’s culpability.
You want to preach “personal responsibility”, then hold O’Reilly responsible for exposing an innocent man to people known to kill his like. This isn’t just about O’Reilly’s own rhetoric, which is execrable itself, but also about his assistance of known murderers, even if he was shrewd enough to not collude with any particular individual criminal.
Well, that’s annoying. I was wondering how my second link about Beck could be viewed as free of context and it turns out that somehow link failed to show up in my post. He spends a good three minutes setting up this scenario in which he’s imagining visiting Nancy Pelosi at a party, for an opportunity to affect her policies. He’s quite clear that that opportunity, he would use it to poison her.
Now, you can argue that that isn’t what he’d actually do if he had the chance. That’s certainly a reasonable assumption. But that relies on the idea that the connection between his words and a real situation is not credible. Considering that Fuller’s choice of language veered so far from reality that he called a mass gathering “all whores“, there’s no reason to distinguish Fuller and Beck. If one can be removed from public discourse, so can the other.
Tgirsch
So which is it, the nutjob is responsible for his own actions or did rhetoric lead to his violence? You want to have your cake and eat it too. If you say outright that Louhghner is solely responsible, with no influence from the right, I will retract what I said. I like you Tgirsch. I don’t want you to sulk around feeling bad.
Liberals might be surprised Loughner wasn’t a Beck fan. Conservatives would have been surprised if the left didn’t immediately try to politicize such a tragic event.
Dan M.
Save the baby rhetoric. Even if what you said were true Tiller, in order to become very rich, specialized in killing babies that could live outside of the womb. I already said the killer of Tiller should be executed.
Stupid? Dude, is that one of your internet norms of decency? No wonder people don’t take you seriously.
Nice try on the O’Reilly thing and yes he is responsible for his own actions too. However your view that he drives people to kill is ludicrous.
As far as Fuller goes I think what you are failing to see here (let’s call it an inability to distinguish if you wish) is that Loughner before the incident was an unknown person who ran around intimidating people and threatening people before he went berserk. I simply pointed out that the left has a long history of engaging in this type of behavior. Since you don’t like looking at recent history, such as Sara Jane Moore, I gave you an example that was merely days old.
I stand by my assertion that we need to support Gabrielle and all others touched by this terrible event. We need to look at the real issue here which in this case would involve a discussion on dealing with mental health issues. We need to realize that everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Of course, everyone supports Gabrielle Gifford, and the other victims of the shooter. Who wouldn’t? What’s up
with you, anyway, Truth? I can’t figure out what right angle you are on.
The shooter deserves to be locked up somewhere tight.
The courts will decide where and when. Why second guess
the guy’s motivation? We don’t care for the gory details.
That is up to law enforcement, the courts, and the mental
health facilities.
Moreover, bloody abortionists are a bad analogy to what
happened in the supermarket in Arizona. Let’s stick to
the subject at hand. (You have your right hand and you have your left hand. You can’t do as well without one
of these hands.) So stop grinding your axe here for a while
and post on Oxyrush Limbaugh’s site where you’ll have
a ready audience. I’m sure he has his points, we all
have our points but let’s not beat the horse to death.
To further the metaphor, airforce one needs both right wings and left wings to stay aloft. The president and the
Democrats might not be popular with you; however,
the government of our country needs our help and support.
So, Truth, please get off your high horse and “don’t spit in the soup ’cause we all gotta eat”.
Some folks, Truth, are not as inclined to historical events as you and I are, but we can’t discount people who are trying to focus on the events at hand. The “tea party” is nothing new as I said earlier. I’ve stuck by my opinions, too… Even though people talk over me and through me, I am playing on this course of events also. I am what I am…
Truth:
So which is it, the nutjob is responsible for his own actions or did rhetoric lead to his violence?
That’s what we in the biz call a “false dilemma.” I’m not trying to have anything both ways, I’m merely noting that nothing in life is ever that simple.
The idea that eliminationist rhetoric can lead to an environment where acts of political violence become a lot more likely is not mutually exclusive from the idea that we’re all ultimately responsible for our own actions. You’re acting as though blame is perfectly binary, and it isn’t.
If a mob boss orders one of his employees to “whack” someone, is the mob boss 100% responsible and the shooter 0% responsible? Is the shooter 100% responsible and the mob boss 0% responsible? That’s the false dilemma that you’ve set up.
If you say outright that Louhghner is solely responsible, with no influence from the right, I will retract what I said.
I won’t go so far as to say “solely,” although certainly “mostly.” The system has a role in it too, given how easy it was for someone with a history of mental issues to go buy a deadly weapon, for example. At the end of the day, he did what he did, and he bears the lion’s share of the responsibility, but that doesn’t mean we can just blame him 100%, declare that there’s nothing anybody could have done differently, and call it case closed. I will concede (and, in fact, already have conceded), that there’s no evidence that the rhetoric of the Beck/Palin types had any influence in this particular case.
I don’t want you to sulk around feeling bad
You needn’t worry yourself about that. I don’t lose any sleep over anything you write here.
Conservatives would have been surprised if the left didn’t immediately try to politicize such a tragic event.
In case you weren’t paying attention, “the left” wasn’t alone in immediately placing partisan blame.
Finally, do you know Rep. Giffords personally? If not, it’s extremely rude to keep calling her by her first name. You probably don’t care about that, but I figured it should be pointed out to you. Again.
Troof,
Where do you get off telling me to “[s]ave the baby rhetoric”? You’re the one who claimed that babies were involved in abortions.
As for Tiller being “very rich”, this is something O’Reilly loved to repeat, but of course never sourced. After a great deal of digging, I’ve found one source for the claim, and it’s obviously wrong. It cite’s Tiller’s court testimony that his business had a 62% overhead, and multiplies the complement of that by an average cost Tiller gave for a late-term abortion. That’s complete nonsense, because cost is not the same as profit. The number $1.2M used by Operation Rescue isn’t all Tiller’s income; it also pays for actually doing the work of the medical procedures, and that’s assuming that the “cost” figure sited is actually price, not cost. Nevermind the fact that only about half (Sorry, I can’t find firm numbers on that.) of the abortions Tiller did were late-term
Tiller … specialized in killing [fetuses] that could live outside of the womb.
This is an outright lie. You’re lying about a man who was murdered by a terrorist. Have some shred of decency or at least pretend to have some shame about it.
Kansas collects statistics on those abortions. Looking at 2008, as the last year in which Tiller wasn’t dead, he did 323 abortions after 22 weeks, Kansas’s legal age of vialibility. Of those, almost half were not viable, despite being far enough into the pregnancy. All 192 of the remaining would have killed or maimed the mother to bear. Not a single one “could have live[d] outside the womb”, unless you have some magic teleporter technology you’re not sharing with the rest of us.
If you don’t think that matters, then just come out and say you don’t care how many women are maimed or killed. It won’t come as a shock to anyone here, and it’ll at least make you a tiny bit more honest.
Steve Plonk
“Moreover, bloody abortionists are a bad analogy to what happened in the supermarket in Arizona. Let’s stick to the subject at hand”. Actually it’s Dan M. that dragged an abortionist into this.
tgirsch
“…it’s extremely rude to keep calling her by her first name.” Wow. Truth notes that Tgirsch, the arbitrator of all that is considered rude, goes on this tangent. I am using the name of Gabrielle as a term of endearment brought on by compassion. Really no different than someone selling bracelets with her name on them.
It’s laughable that you would make an issue of this and ignore true rudeness on this site including name calling and using grade school gutter language.
Dan M.
“Have some shred of decency…” This is much like when you were preaching internet norms of decency yet dropping foul language and calling people terrible names. You have no credibility when talking about decency. The decent thing to do would be to execute the killer of Tiller.
Save your abortion rhetoric. That’s why you are called pro-choice and I am called pro-life. Steve Plonk would implore you to stick to the subject at hand.
It’s laughable that you would make an issue of this and ignore true rudeness on this site including name calling and using grade school gutter language.
I don’t have a single goddamn clue what the fuck you’re talking about.
Tgirsch, thank you for so eloquently making my point. I don’t think all liberals talk like that but this crowd, uhh, party of three, apparently does. I love ya anyway man!
Glad I could be of service
Everybody seems to have lightened up a bit and
seems to disagree without being disagreeable. I like
that. I try to emulate that myself. Sometimes I slip up.
I certainly hope, and I repeat, that the murderer at the Arizona supermarket should get a fair trial and be locked up tight somewhere permanent, if found guilty.
I appreciate the opportunity to express opinions on
this site and have civility maintained for the most part.
That is why I continue to post here.
The rule of law should supersede the right to own a gun.
Hopefully, there will be routine checks for firearm registration, just like with motor vehicles, boats, and airplanes. Folks with “a screw loose” should not be able
to purchase ammo or any kind of firearm. (We also
should note that drunk drivers must be made to stay
off the road, etc…)