Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

Another sign of the times. This also supports the "toxic speech inflames real acts (from right or left)" hypothesis.

Is Anti-Government Anger Fueling Violence Against Census Workers?
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/surge-violence-against-census-workers
"Earlier this year, anti-government activists had mounted a crusade against the Census as a constitutional invasion of privacy—even threatening violence against Census takers. "I dare them to try and come throw me in jail...Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door," RedState blogger and CNN commentator Erick Erickson said in April. Now, a new report from the US Census Bureau reveals that more than 113 census workers have been assaulted or attacked since April 1—a number that's significantly higher than the last US Census ten years ago."
 
Denver said:
I see. I was commenting specifically to a post about Beck.

I see also that he does have a story there, entitled:
"Lib Talker Bill Press Flat Out Accuses Beck & Palin’s Rhetoric of Being Responsible For Violence"

But when I watch the video, Bill Press says (near the end)...


That doesn't quite seem like a "Flat out accusation" to me. Even when Beck tries to make it look like he presents both sides of an issue, it is humorously slanted, and even the title is spun.
Click to expand...

Glenn Beck is biased.

So is Keith Olbermann

So is Bill O'Reilly

So is Bill Press

So is Rachel Maddow

So is Bill Maher

I can go on...and on...
 
tyr_13 said:
That said, I don't think it's an important factor in this case. So far it doesn't seem to be a crazy ass driven over the edge by partisan politics, but a mentally disturbed paranoid taking any and all comers from CT sources and acting on whatever local politician happened to annoy him first.
Click to expand...

We can't know. That's one of the reasons the violent rhetoric is dangerous. You can't control which ears hear it, which eyes see it, which minds are influenced by it. I think it's an important factor, period, and incidents like this, whether directly inspired by that rhetoric or not, highlight for us why it's important.

We cannot control who out there has been listening to and reading this violent rhetoric, who has now seen this incident, and is even now amping up to copycat it, make his/her own little revolution...

It aids nothing. It helps nothing. It encourages only violence, anger, acrimony, partisanship, us against them...this isn't vital to politics anywhere, and doesn't belong under that sanction, that cachet, that influence.

I hold no woo notion that getting rid of this kind of political speech will suddenly make everything wonderful, rosy, and perfect. That we'll all go to holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

I also don't think that saying this nut never saw or heard a word of it renders the speech any less dangerous or inadvisable.

It needs to go. It doesn't matter if this one, specific incident can't be connected to it, but I don't see how one can come to the conclusion it wasn't, because this crap is everywhere in the US. He'd have to be a rat hiding in a deep hole in the ground not to have encountered it. It's on billboards, radio, TV, the Internet, the newspapers, the magazines, every bit of media you can imagine. It's frankly ridiculous to assert it hadn't any influence.

You don't know, and I don't know, but it is more likely to assume he was exposed to some measure of it than to assume he wasn't; more likely to assume that it had some effect rather than none.

He's not the first. He won't be the last.
 
case#46cw39 said:
Another sign of the times. This also supports the "toxic speech inflames real acts (from right or left)" hypothesis.

Is Anti-Government Anger Fueling Violence Against Census Workers?
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/surge-violence-against-census-workers
"Earlier this year, anti-government activists had mounted a crusade against the Census as a constitutional invasion of privacy—even threatening violence against Census takers. "I dare them to try and come throw me in jail...Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door," RedState blogger and CNN commentator Erick Erickson said in April. Now, a new report from the US Census Bureau reveals that more than 113 census workers have been assaulted or attacked since April 1—a number that's significantly higher than the last US Census ten years ago."
Click to expand...

You ought to have been in the Census office in which I worked. I had a handful of these people on the phone. Their speech against us and the Government was toxic. And all I was trying to do was put some damned food on my table and not take food stamps or welfare to do it.
 
WildCat said:
I thought everyone knew this. She only had 2 subscriptions on her youtube page - to Rep. Ike Skelton, and to Loughner's channel.

It looks like Loughner is no longer on her subscription list, but it was there as late as last night at least.
Click to expand...

I read that she wasn't subscribed to him until recently so it might have been one of her staffer monitoring that channel once it was known that that was the shooter's youtube.
 
slingblade said:
We can't know. That's one of the reasons the violent rhetoric is dangerous. You can't control which ears hear it, which eyes see it, which minds are influenced by it. I think it's an important factor, period, and incidents like this, whether directly inspired by that rhetoric or not, highlight for us why it's important.

We cannot control who out there has been listening to and reading this violent rhetoric, who has now seen this incident, and is even now amping up to copycat it, make his/her own little revolution...

It aids nothing. It helps nothing. It encourages only violence, anger, acrimony, partisanship, us against them...this isn't vital to politics anywhere, and doesn't belong under that sanction, that cachet, that influence.

I hold no woo notion that getting rid of this kind of political speech will suddenly make everything wonderful, rosy, and perfect. That we'll all go to holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

I also don't think that saying this nut never saw or heard a word of it renders the speech any less dangerous or inadvisable.

It needs to go. It doesn't matter if this one, specific incident can't be connected to it, but I don't see how one can come to the conclusion it wasn't, because this crap is everywhere in the US. He'd have to be a rat hiding in a deep hole in the ground not to have encountered it. It's on billboards, radio, TV, the Internet, the newspapers, the magazines, every bit of media you can imagine. It's frankly ridiculous to assert it hadn't any influence.

You don't know, and I don't know, but it is more likely to assume he was exposed to some measure of it than to assume he wasn't; more likely to assume that it had some effect rather than none.

He's not the first. He won't be the last.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you can say this about literally anything. How does one define if rhetoric is violent enough to incite?

Speak out against it when you think it is a problem, especially if it's coming from someone you otherwise support. But simple 'zero tolerance' knee jerk 'it all must go' doesn't work well. Zero tolerance means zero thinking, zero analyzing, zero skepticism.

Otherwise I agree with you. It's way out of hand, although I can think of other times in the history of the US when it was way worse. Even times it didn't result in war.
 
I guess this is the shooter's full mugshot. It looks like he is smiling.
 

Attachments

  • capt.ea310e7e39ae4b1c93879bc864cd65f8-ea310e7e39ae4b1c93879bc864cd65f8-0.jpg
    capt.ea310e7e39ae4b1c93879bc864cd65f8-ea310e7e39ae4b1c93879bc864cd65f8-0.jpg
    97.8 KB · Views: 5
BenBurch said:
So you be a responsible person and don't say it.

If you want a civil war, and MEAN it, say so, but until that day, a decent human being just does not use that rhetoric.
Click to expand...


What is "that" rhetoric and who gets to determine what is decent and responsible?
 
tyr_13 said:
The problem is that you can say this about literally anything. How does one define if rhetoric is violent enough to incite?

Speak out against it when you think it is a problem, especially if it's coming from someone you otherwise support. But simple 'zero tolerance' knee jerk 'it all must go' doesn't work well. Zero tolerance means zero thinking, zero analyzing, zero skepticism.

Otherwise I agree with you. It's way out of hand, although I can think of other times in the history of the US when it was way worse. Even times it didn't result in war.
Click to expand...

I never used the term Zero Tolerance, and would not. I'm not insisting on any laws or any sanctions. I loathe the Zero Tolerance approach. It doesn't solve anything, and usually makes things worse

I'm asking for responsibility. And I know I won't get it.
But I can still have and voice my opinion on it. Which is all I have done.
 
slingblade said:
I never used the term Zero Tolerance, and would not. I'm not insisting on any laws or any sanctions. I loathe the Zero Tolerance approach. It doesn't solve anything, and usually makes things worse

I'm asking for responsibility. And I know I won't get it.
But I can still have and voice my opinion on it. Which is all I have done.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said you weren't voicing your opinion.

I'm pointing out that it certainly sounds like zero tolerance when you say things like...

It aids nothing. It helps nothing. It encourages only violence, anger, acrimony, partisanship, us against them...this isn't vital to politics anywhere, and doesn't belong under that sanction, that cachet, that influence.
Click to expand...

...which sounds a lot like the stance some people take on cartoons, video games, books, etc.

Obviously fundamentally we agree that things are unreasonable right now. I'm saying that it can easily swing too far the other way, where all one has to do is imply that their opponent said something 'sorta violent'. Every act of speech needs to be judged on it's own merit.
 
Whatever. I give up.

The words that keep getting shoved into my mouth taste bad, and I'm tired of spitting them out.
 
Last edited:
deepatrax said:
Glenn Beck is biased.

So is Keith Olbermann

So is Bill O'Reilly

So is Bill Press

So is Rachel Maddow

So is Bill Maher

I can go on...and on...
Click to expand...

Bias is not a problem, especially when people are overt about it. People who strongly believe in what they're presenting will often do a better job. As long as there are people on the other side honestly keeping the other in check, it's no issue.

Dishonesty, however, is a different issue. If you can find an example of Maddow (Maher is a comedian) presenting anything as deeply malicious as "birther" nonsense, then you can start playing your equivalency game. That's just the beginning. Once you've come up with a single example of such flagrant stupidity and/or dishonesty, then we can start examining the full cannon.
 
TraneWreck said:
Bias is not a problem, especially when people are overt about it. People who strongly believe in what they're presenting will often do a better job. As long as there are people on the other side honestly keeping the other in check, it's no issue.

Dishonesty, however, is a different issue. If you can find an example of Maddow (Maher is a comedian) presenting anything as deeply malicious as "birther" nonsense, then you can start playing your equivalency game. That's just the beginning. Once you've come up with a single example of such flagrant stupidity and/or dishonesty, then we can start examining the full cannon.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that there are people on FOX News who are birthers??
 
deepatrax said:
Are you claiming that there are people on FOX News who are birthers??
Click to expand...

From FoxNews.com:

You have to admit though, even if you are a devout Obama-bot, Obama's refusal to release any original documents makes for a newsworthy story by itself.

If he really wants the Birthers to shut up, he has the power to do it by releasing the original documents. Why not just do it then? It's a simple task. Why not get rid of a conversation that has been with America since the campaign?
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/29/tommy-seno-obama-birthers/

The usual, "IIIIIIIIIII'm not saying he's from Kenya, Buuuuuut..."

Found that one in about .2sec with Google. You're welcome to look for more.

How about the ACORN smear Fox jumped on hook-line-and-sinker? The New Black Panthers? Sherrod?

Fox pimps right wing insanity. It's what they do.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
One person's decent is another person's indecent.
Click to expand...

You know better than that. I know you do.

When a person says that, for example, that second amendment remedies are the cure to our political problems, that person knows exactly and precisely that what they are saying is indecent. When a person says, for example, that Democrats need to be made afraid to come out of their houses, that person know they are calling for violence.

And a decent person will not do either of those things.

And Personal Responsibility demands that one consider one's words and the effect they will have because words have consequences. (If they did not, we would never have evolved the capacity for them!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom