Worst voting record in the house, this is heinous

[RandFan]

Heinous?

Really?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We know he was seriously mentally ill, but we do not know that he was never exposed to the '2nd amendment remedy' rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric that is very well and truly established to influence the unwell.

We know for certain that Berkowitz was indeed exposed to the neighbor's dog, and Hinkley was exposed to the public image of Jodie Foster. It doesn't mean it's reasonable in this context to consider those things to have been "influences" on the crimes in question.

If a political candidate is to be held responsible for how his remarks might possibly be misconstrued by the mentally ill, do dog owners and movie stars have the same responsibility? If not, why not?

If the claim is that the the influence is an unreasonable influence, then you can make the same argument (exactly the same) about the voices of Snap, Crackle and Pop speaking to a mentally ill person from a bowl of Rice Krispies. It is certainly possible and foreseeable that a mentally ill person could misconstrue the sounds of their Rice Krispies as voices urging them to commit a violent act. Yet we don't say the makers of Rice Krispies are acting irresponsibly in not letting that possibility compelling them to make a quiet cereal.

Political speech in particular, even that which you and I might find loathsome, is protected by the First Amendment in the absence of any valid state interest that outweighs free speech. I'm not about to let this idea that the possibility that a mentally ill person can misconstrue speech as incitement to commit violent acts ever be a reason to hold the speaker accountable for those violent acts and especially to deem that preventing those violent acts might be a valid state interest that outweighs the right to free speech.

And where exactly does one draw the line? Campaign rhetoric is fraught with violent figurative imagery (including even the word campaign and also words such as battlefield, sights, target, strategy, etc., and phrases such as marshall one's forces , rally the troops, and so on).

Are people who use these phrases somehow acting irresponsibly if they fail to consider the possibility that a mentally ill person might misconstrue their rhetoric as incitement to violence?

ETA: And the SCOTUS says that speech is protected even if it advocates violence. To fall outside First Amendment protection, it has to be intentionally directed at inciting imminent illegal acts AND it must be likely to incite such illegal action (not merely possible). This is the Brandenburg test (from Brandenburg v. Ohio). I don't think this "Second Amendment solution" stuff was even the advocacy of violence, much less something that was intended to produce imminent violence and was likely to do so. I think it was actually figurative language, on par with a candidate saying something like, "I'm going to destroy my opponent in South Carolina". I don't know that for sure, but I think it's not reasonable to construe it otherwise. At any rate, it certainly wouldn't pass the Brandenburg test. Saying it's possible a mentally ill person could construe one's words as incitement to commit violence isn't at all the same as saying that is likely to happen (and that's even ignoring the imminent part altogether).

 

[varwoche]

We know for certain that Berkowitz was indeed exposed to the neighbor's dog

Again, you are placing supernaturality on the same playing field as the mundane. The odds are monumentally greater that Loughner was exposed to current events, versus the possibility that demonic dogs walk amongst us, projecting their evil power.

and Hinkley was exposed to the public image of Jodie Foster. It doesn't mean it's reasonable in this context to consider those things to have been "influences" on the crimes in question.

Sure it is. These are all influences. You are conflating blame/responsibility with influence.

If a political candidate is to be held responsible for how his remarks might possibly be misconstrued by the mentally ill, do dog owners and movie stars have the same responsibility? If not, why not?

Let's put aside the cause/effect aspect for a second and consider the stand-alone actions of these groups:

Do we condemn innocent dog owners and actors for doing what innocent dog owners and actors do? Of course not.

Do we condemn politicians who engage in incendiary rhetoric? Yes, at least most of us do.

There's nothing to be said about innocuous actions that by freak of chance influence some crazy person. Whereas the actions (words) of Jesse Kelly, Jan Brewer, and others were not innocuous.

Do/did you condemn the words of Kelly, Brewer, Angle, or other of the raving right-wing nuts in 2008? If yes, why?

I'm not about to let this idea that the possibility that a mentally ill person can misconstrue speech as incitement to commit violent acts ever be a reason to hold the speaker accountable for those violent acts and especially to deem that preventing those violent acts might be a valid state interest that outweighs the right to free speech.

This is a straw man of truly remarkable stature.

And where exactly does one draw the line? Campaign rhetoric is fraught with violent figurative imagery (including even the word campaign and also words such as battlefield, sights, target, strategy, etc., and phrases such as marshall one's forces , rally the troops, and so on).

True. Figuring out where to draw such lines is always dicey. I generally don't have a problem with common figures of speech.

However I'm not hugely concerned about line placement because I'm not even remotely suggesting this is a matter of legality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, you are placing supernaturality on the same playing field as the mundane. The odds are monumentally greater that Loughner was exposed to current events, versus the possibility that demonic dogs walk amongst us, projecting their evil power.

The dog was real, and the neighbor was real. The delusion was a delusion. This still works in the Loughner shooting.

And if you don't like that, use the Jodie Foster influence on the Hinkley shooting.

Sure it is. These are all influences. You are conflating blame/responsibility with influence.

This is where I think your argument become disingenuous. If you're only making the point that Loughner still took in sensory information from the real world to incorporate in his delusions, then why talk about Jesse Kelly's rhetoric, in this context, as being "irresponsible"? Why single that out, and not worry over whether or not his Rice Krispies had an "influence"?

Do we condemn politicians who engage in incendiary rhetoric? Yes, at least most of us do.

It depends on what you mean by "condemn". As I've been saying, I'm a strong proponent of the First Amendment right to free speech, and I think it's of great importance that we not confuse speech acts with incitement to violence.

There's nothing to be said about innocuous actions that by freak of chance influence some crazy person. Whereas the actions (words) of Jesse Kelly, Jan Brewer, and others were not innocuous.

So what does condemnation consist of in the context of looking for "influences" (influences which somehow are irresponsible without being responsible for causing anything) for acts of violence?

I have no problem with also defending our free speech rights to criticize Jesse Kelly's rhetoric, but I think it's very important to do so without suggesting or implying that he is somehow responsible or culpable for Loughner's shooting.

And I'd remind you that this didn't just come up as a criticism of Kelly's rhetoric out of the blue--it was in the context of the one year anniversary of the shooting. You have definitely been trying to connect Kelly to the shooting. I think that's the sort of "condemnation" that isn't right.

ETA: And you did in fact use the word "irresponsible" in referring to Kelly's rhetoric in the context of a discussion of Loughner's shooting of Giffords. So I ask again, what was Kelly's responsibility wrt to the possibility that a mentally ill person might misconstrue his remarks and incorporate them into a delusion? Doesn't Berkowitz' neighbor, Jodie Foster and even the maker of Rice Krispies have that same exact degree of "responsibility"?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However I'm not hugely concerned about line placement because I'm not even remotely suggesting this is a matter of legality.

The legal issues and the moral/culpability issues are interconnected. The reason Brandenburg is the law of the land is because we value free speech rights so much that we support those rights even when we find the speech acts in question to be odious. We make a very strong distinction between speech acts likely to cause violence (and put that beyond the line of protected speech).

(Indeed, the principle goes back way before the Brandenburg case, and was well expressed in the line often attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.")

I contend that Kelly's speech acts were well within the line of protected speech, and only a delusional psychopath would take his words to be instructions to commit violent acts. And a delusional psychopath might take anything to be instructions to commit violent acts.

So again, I'm fine with condemning Kelly's rhetoric in and of itself, but not in any way of connecting it by a relationship of "influence" or causality or responsibility in any way to Loughner's actions. And that is exactly the context his remarks were introduced into this discussion.

Going back to Newton's Bit's post, yes, I do agree we can positively affirm that in no meaningful way is it right to characterize Loughner's act as a political act or as an act that was the result of the rhetoric of the likes of Jesse Kelly.

If you're only talking about the possibility that a deluded person might misperceive some actual sensory input from the real world and incorporate that into his delusions, then there is no more validity to talking about Jesse Kelly's rhetoric than there is in talking about the role of Berkowitz' neighbor's dog, Jodie Foster, or the makers of Rice Krispies in the acts of violence in question.

 

[joobz]

To the extent I could not fulfill my fiduciary responsibility, yes.

It is unethical to continue when you are unable to fulfill your fiduciary duty.

The question is if voting is a fiduciary duty of representatives. Further, does Giffords transcend that responsibility?

I ascertain that you feel she isn't fulling her fiduciary duty.

 

[varwoche]

The dog was real, and the neighbor was real. The delusion was a delusion. This still works in the Loughner shooting.

No matter how earnestly you parse (and mis-parse), it won't change the fact that the odds are monumentally greater that Loughner was influenced by current events than someone having been influenced by a demonic dog.

This is where I think your argument become disingenuous. If you're only making the point that Loughner still took in sensory information from the real world to incorporate in his delusions, then why talk about Jesse Kelly's rhetoric, in this context, as being "irresponsible"? Why single that out, and not worry over whether or not his Rice Krispies had an "influence"?

Sorry Joe, you're going to have to stop evading the questions I pose to you if you wish me to continue to address your questions. Here, I'll try again:

Do/did you condemn the words of Kelly, Brewer, Angle, or other of the raving right-wing nuts in 2008? If yes, why?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

No matter how earnestly you parse (and mis-parse), it won't change the fact that the odds are monumentally greater that Loughner was influenced by current events than someone having been influenced by a demonic dog.

That's a "Monumentally" stupid comparison. For Berkowitz we know that he thought that a dog was telling him to kill people because he told us so and there was evidence outside of that to corroborate that in the form of his notes and behavior.

Lougner has never stated that he was influenced by any violent right wing rhetoric and there is no corroborating evidence or background information to imply that he did. He hated Bush and he first showed a dislike for Giffords as far back as August of 2007 (almost 3.5 years before the shooting) when he called her "Fake" for not answering a question that he asked her in a way that he liked. Before that meeting he apparently liked having her as his congresswoman.

Based simply upon known facts the Odds are 100% that Berkowitz thought that a dog told him to kill people simply because there is supporting evidence and the odds are 0% that Loughner was influenced by right wing rhetoric simply because there is no supporting evidence to show that he heard any of it.

Just because you knew about the rhetoric doesn't mean that Loughner was aware of it much less influenced by it. You are projecting your own opinions and experiences upon him simply because it happens to fit your worldview.

 

[bynmdsue]

Does it change anything that Berkowitz admits the dog story was a lie and that he shot women because he hated them?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Does it change anything that Berkowitz admits the dog story was a lie and that he shot women because he hated them?

Only if you believed that the dog actually set him off.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No matter how earnestly you parse (and mis-parse), it won't change the fact that the odds are monumentally greater that Loughner was influenced by current events than someone having been influenced by a demonic dog.

No. I can spell the parallelisms out to you:

purported cause (what rational people reject) | actual reality
demon possessed dog told him to do it | neighbor has a normal dog that no rational person would take to be giving instructions to kill
Jesse Kelly gave instructions to shoot Giffords | Kelly made campaign rhetoric using figurative language of violence which no rational person would take as instructions to shoot Giffords

Sorry Joe, you're going to have to stop evading the questions I pose to you if you wish me to continue to address your questions. Here, I'll try again:

I answered your question. Depending on what you mean by condemn, my answer could be yes or no. I specified my answer for each meaning to leave no doubt.

[ETA: I'm happy to repeat it. I'm fine with condemning Jesse Kelly's rhetoric for itself. I think it's wrong to condemn that rhetoric as being somehow connected to Loughner's shooting Giffords. I know you're searching through the forums for what I posted on the subject a year ago, but I think you'll come up with me maintaining a consistent position on this.
ETA (later): And even if you do find a post I wrote in the past that expresses a contradictory position--I don't think you will--I will happily then admit to having changed to my present position. Basically looking for a quote of my own to throw in my face--as you PMed me you are attempting to do--is an ad hominem argument. It has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments I'm making.]

Funny, though, you have yet to answer my question about what you mean by Jesse Kelly's rhetoric being "irresponsible" in the context of this conversation.

So basically you've ducked the question I have asked at least twice before while accusing me of ducking a question of yours that I have in fact answered. If you don't believe Jesse Kelly is somehow partially responsible for Loughner's violent actions, what do you mean by insisting that it was "irresponsible" in the context of this thread?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does it change anything that Berkowitz admits the dog story was a lie and that he shot women because he hated them?

Not even a little, since not only has Loughner not claimed that Jesse Kelly's rhetoric is why he shot Giffords, there is also no rational reason to take Kelly's rhetoric as actual instructions to kill Giffords.

As I've been saying, we could as easily be talking about the "irresponsibility" of Kellogs for not considering that the sounds of Rice Krispies might be taken by a delusional person like Loughner as instructions to shoot Giffords.

 

[varwoche]

the odds are 0% that Loughner was influenced by right wing rhetoric

Truly hilarious, particularly on a skeptical forum. But I'm glad you posted it. Had you said the odds were merely infinitesimal, it would be less optimal of a setup for me to make the following observations:

When people make absolute statements concerning topics where it's impossible to possess absolute knowledge, it's a bright red indicator of irrationality. People, even self-styled skeptics, don't always deal well with ambiguity. They prefer to get out a straight edge and draw little boxes around things, insisting on pat answers, when that's just not how things work, especially when we get into the area of the human mind.

Does it change anything that Berkowitz admits the dog story was a lie and that he shot women because he hated them?

If true, it reduces the odds that Berkowitz was influenced by a demonic dog from .000000000000001% to .0000000000000000001%. (Sorry to be anal, but having just lectured Sam about 0%... )

 

[varwoche]

I answered your question. Depending on what you mean by condemn, my answer could be yes or no. I specified my answer for each meaning to leave no doubt.

No doubt? I just reviewed the last few posts and I don't see anything resembling an honest answer. Condemning it "for itself" is bare naked weaseling. Here, I'll try a third time:

Do /did you condemn the words of Kelly, Brewer, Angle, or other of the raving right-wing nuts in 2008? If yes, why?

Also, what I wrote to you via PM was intended as a friendly gesture and not as an extension of our debate per se. But even if you read it otherwise, for you to drag my PM into the thread, selectively in a self-serving manner, is incredibly poor form.

 

[varwoche]

Joe, I reviewed the thread and you're right, I owe you a better explanation for my characterization of Jesse Kelly's speech as irresponsible.

I consider the words used by Kelly and other of the 2008 teaparty crazies as irresponsible irrespective of Loughner's actions. That's because what they said was inflamatory. I condemned the inflamatory speech before Loughner (the speech I was aware of at least), and after.

So no more excuses, please answer this question without ducking part 2:

Do you condemn the words of Kelly, Brewer, Angle, or other of the raving right-wing nuts in 2008? If yes, why?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I consider the words used by Kelly and other of the 2008 teaparty crazies as irresponsible irrespective of Loughner's actions.

I'd agree with that, but I confess to some confusion now. It was just a coincidence that your observation of Kelly's rhetoric came up in the context of the 1 yr anniversary of Loughner's shooting of Giffords?

That's because what they said was inflamatory. I condemned the inflamatory speech before Loughner (the speech I was aware of at least), and after.

M'kay. So you're not suggesting or implying any connection at all between Kelly's rhetoric and the Loughner shooting. So why bring it up in this thread?

So no more excuses, please answer this question without ducking part 2:

Do you condemn the words of Kelly, Brewer, Angle, or other of the raving right-wing nuts in 2008? If yes, why?

I have made no excuses. I've answered this twice already. I'll do it again.

If you mean "condemn" to mean criticize the rhetoric in its own right (as you're claiming you do in this post), then yes I do. I think it's unnecessarily inflammatory, divisive and generally bad for political discourse. (On the plus side, it lets the voters see the true colors of a character like Kelly, and probably makes for an unsuccessful campaign.)

If you mean "condemn" in the context of a thread on the Loughner shooting, then no I do not. If there is any implication that this kind of a speech act bears responsibility for how it might be misconstrued by a mentally ill person who goes on to commit acts of violence, then no I do not.

[ETA: The best description of my attitude toward rhetoric like Kelly's is the line often misattributed to Voltaire (or a paraphrase of it): Even though I find their speech acts despicable, I will vociferously defend their right to make it.]

I accept that you are not now doing the latter.

You entered this part of the discussion by disagreeing with Newton's Bit's post that basically rejected the latter. You seemed to think that it was wrong to positively state that there is no reasonable association between Kelly's rhetoric and Loughner's actions. You seemed to be arguing that a speaker has a responsibility to consider how his words might be misconstrued by a mentally ill person. If you are not doing so, then I think we're in agreement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, what I wrote to you via PM was intended as a friendly gesture and not as an extension of our debate per se. But even if you read it otherwise, for you to drag my PM into the thread, selectively in a self-serving manner, is incredibly poor form.

You told me you were going to search through past threads to see if you could find something I wrote that you could throw into my face.

Now you keep repeating a question where the word "condemn" is at least ambiguous, and you reject my giving two answers depending on which of two things you mean.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If true, it reduces the odds that Berkowitz was influenced by a demonic dog from .000000000000001% to .0000000000000000001%. (Sorry to be anal, but having just lectured Sam about 0%... )

I don't think the probability thing is the right way to look at it. Or if so, it's the probability that a reasonable person would take any actions of the neighbor's dog to be instructions to commit murder 0%, which is identical to the probability that a reasonable person would take Kelly's rhetoric to be instructions to assassinate Giffords, and identical to the probability that a reasonable person would take the sounds emanating from a bowl of Rice Krispies as instructions to assassinate Giffords.

 

[varwoche]

So Joe, you condemn Jesse Kelly for his inflamatory speech. Well I've got news for you: mentally ill people aren't immune from becoming inflamed; there's not a magic aura protecting them.

And I see you've dragged our PMs into the thread again. Besides that it's poor form to disregard that P stands for private, it's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to reference metadata that can't be evaluated by readers. My respect for this sort of slimy debate tatic is precisely nil.

I've had my say. I'll read any response you may have, but I'm disinclined to engage with you further.

 

[varwoche]

An expert who supports my (painfully obvious) proposition:

The key here and the connection to Giffords is that if someone believes that the government is out to get them in a delusional way, that it's filling their mind and and runnng through their mind, and around them is rhetoric which is hostile and chaotic, research shows that it makes the symptoms worse.

Hopefully I can track down the research that Lipman references.