Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

[applecorped]

This thread has moved too fast to go back and check everything in the last couple hours. To summarize, it looks like the MySpace and YouTube videos have been confirmed as belonging to the shooter. And those pieces of evidence, plus his age indicate (note, I did not say, prove) paranoid schizophrenia.

There are a few too many politicians and other interviewees in the news calling the guy horrible names. That is a lot worse than those of us condemning the right wing rhetoric that encourages this kind of violence.

I maintain my original position, the rhetoric has the potential to trigger nutjobs. Now I'm sorry for using the noun nutjob myself to refer to people that might include some with serious mental illness. Regardless, of what kind of mental problems a person who reacts to the rhetoric has, and regardless if this shooter was or was not influenced by the rhetoric we are talking about, the rhetoric is dangerous and this incident is an example of why.

Whether this had been a nutjob right winger convinced the Democratic Congresswoman was a threat to his freedom, or if as it appears, it was a person with a mental illness who may or may not have been influenced by the rhetoric, the incident still illustrates the danger of the rhetoric. Like I said earlier, no one is saying the rhetoric would influence a rational person to act in this way. The danger is the rhetoric of constant fear mongering against your political opponent can trigger unstable people to do this kind of thing.

But this isn't a thread about rhetoric and whether it promotes violence. Start one if you wish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What the...?! Saw this on 99chan's /b/ and wondered if it was some kind of sick joke. Does Palin suffer from some kind of complete semiotic analphabetism? Doesn't rifle sights have violent connotations for her or what? All things different, it reminds me of the case of "The Laser Man", a disturbed man trigged by the rethoric of that time.

I don't see the analogy. It says he had an individual resentment. Was there a constant barrage of political rhetoric saying immigrants were the cause of all of Sweden's problems at the time?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Okay, this from John McCain, says it all. If McCain was a member of JREF (who says he's not? ), he would be nominated for this:

“Whoever did this, whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law.”

 

[LashL]

I believe the guy at the press conference said still at large, white, 50s, they have pictures. Calling him a 'person of interest'.

5 were dead at the scene.

It was the 9-year-old girl who died in the hospital.

Yes, I'm listening to the same press conference and that is what was said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But this isn't a thread about rhetoric and whether it promotes violence. Start one if you wish.

So these 17 pages of discussion are about the Congresswoman's life and work?

 

[Alan]

The Sheriff or whoever was talking in the press conference criticised people who were inflaming the debate...

To paraphrase him to the best of my recollection: "It may be free speech but it's not without consequences".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I'm listening to the same press conference and that is what was said.

If this is about an accomplice, someone suggested he was a thief who stole something and ran, maybe taking advantage of the commotion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can't rule out a psychotic motive unrelated to the political rhetoric. All of us are pretty much saying that the political rhetoric is just much more likely, and should be stopped whether this is related or not.

Too bad we have this pesky little First Amendment thing in the way, isn't it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Sherrif or whoever was talking in the press conference criticised people who were inflaming the debate...

To paraphrase him to the best of my recollection: "It may be free speech but it's not without consequences".

Why, is there talk of taking up pitchforks and torches against someone?

 

[applecorped]

So these 17 pages of discussion are about the Congresswoman's life and work?

It could have been but you and others injected another topic for no apparent reason other than to paint the suspect in a particular way with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Denver]

Yeah even the sheriff on the press conference just mentioned that all the vitriol of the people who say that stuff for a living, while it may be free speech, does have consequences.

 

[Brainster]

I maintain my original position, the rhetoric has the potential to trigger nutjobs.

Anything has the potential to trigger nutjobs--a traffic light for example. Would that prove the danger of traffic lights? Or would it just prove something far more banal: the danger of nutjobs.

Whether this had been a nutjob right winger convinced the Democratic Congresswoman was a threat to his freedom, or if as it appears, it was a person with a mental illness who may or may not have been influenced by the rhetoric, the incident still illustrates the danger of the rhetoric.

No, it only illustrates the danger of the rhetoric if it turns out to have been inspired or influenced by the rhetoric. And even there, it's dicey. Suppose it turns out that he was influenced by Gifford's vote against Nancy Pelosi for House Minority Leader. Would you say that proved the danger of voting against Nancy Pelosi?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Too bad we have this pesky little First Amendment thing in the way, isn't it?

So the First Amendment is what keeps the Repubs using dangerous fear mongering campaign tactics?

 

[Father Dagon]

I don't see the analogy. It says he had an individual resentment. Was there a constant barrage of political rhetoric saying immigrants were the cause of all of Sweden's problems at the time?

Sort of. New Democracy got seats because of their simplistic and polarizing rhetoric about immigration etc. (They actually managed to demonstrate national economics with plastic bottle cases.)

 

[LTC8K6]

The Sheriff or whoever was talking in the press conference criticised people who were inflaming the debate...

To paraphrase him to the best of my recollection: "It may be free speech but it's not without consequences".

He's upset at the attack on a friend, and lashing out, and I completely understand that, but this man's derangement was not caused by inflammatory political rhetoric.

 

[deepatrax]

So the First Amendment is what keeps the Repubs using dangerous fear mongering campaign tactics?

are you or are you not Fear Mongering when you claim that certain types of speech by Repubs may drive people to violence??

Given that there is absolutely ZERO connection yet to be made between this tragedy and Repub speech.

 

[SmartyPants]

"It may be free speech, but it's not without consequences," just said the sheriff. And he's right, that's why freedom of speech and expression are, in my opinion, the greatest and most sacred of liberties, because they CAN and DO have an effect. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we put a lid on political speech or any other kind of speech; they're (those who are pissed at Palin, or the Daily Kos, whatever) simply suggesting that maybe words and pictures have the ability to inflame certain people, particularly those who are susceptible to paranoia. I don't see why that's controversial.

My lord, can you imagine if Arpaio were running this press conference?

 

[Merko]

I don't see the analogy. It says he had an individual resentment. Was there a constant barrage of political rhetoric saying immigrants were the cause of all of Sweden's problems at the time?

Yes, there was at the time a right wing/populist party using such rhetoric, that party rapidly self-destructed once it got some seats in parliament, but there exists some documentation that the perpetrator was directly influenced by this rhetoric.

That perpetrator also had severe personal issues and in fact partly attacked immigrants as a diversion from his bank robberies, and certainly the rhetoric did not specifically call for immigrants to be shot.

 

[TraneWreck]

It could have been but you and others injected another topic for no apparent reason other than to paint the suspect in a particular way with no evidence whatsoever.

Yes, why, oh why, would extreme political rhetoric be discussed in a thread about an attack on a politician?

It's as bizarre as dicussing radical Islam in a thread about 9-11...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anything has the potential to trigger nutjobs--a traffic light for example. Would that prove the danger of traffic lights? Or would it just prove something far more banal: the danger of nutjobs.

No, those things have the potential to trigger a single individual in a unique situation. What we are talking about is triggering lots of individuals risking that one of them will be the one triggered to act.

No, it only illustrates the danger of the rhetoric if it turns out to have been inspired or influenced by the rhetoric. And even there, it's dicey. Suppose it turns out that he was influenced by Gifford's vote against Nancy Pelosi for House Minority Leader. Would you say that proved the danger of voting against Nancy Pelosi?

From the video and MySpace rantings, the shooter may turn out to have been influenced by Ron Paul's rantings.


You are attempting to throw out the evidence with some red herring argument. It fails.