i think blatant literal and direct threats are already illegal, aren't they? But the blurry stuff that people are rightfully upset about should never be illegal.

Arguing this with anyone but Chad appears to be a moot point anyway, since all the other "smart" people already have their minds made up.

My whole point is that this guy probably couldn't tell the difference between Hilary and Palin, and anyone trying to pin this on a political environment, OR, demagogue people trying to blame it on the political environment is not interested in what really happened, and only in proving a point they've already made their minds up about.

i haven't made my mind up, but you think i'm the dumb people

Why cop out when you obviously got strong feelings on the subject? Or is it because you've already made up your mind too?



If you can't see that this kid was deranged, fine you don't get it. But to simply ignore the rhetoric and not want to have a discussion about it in the wake of this is not really very constructive either. Like harry said, if this kid was black or muslim (or a member of a union) and had killed a Republican, the Right would be demagogue-ing this to death. If he was Messican, any prospect of Immigration reform would be dead, right there.

I agree with this. Discussing rhetorical devices in terms of their usefulness and influence on others should happen through critical analysis on a case by case basis, as they appear. While this guy may have been influenced by the likes of Beck and Palin, there really is no evidence to support it (yet) and the claim is assumptive rather than factually verifiable. And, many of the loud voices seem to suggest that these rhetorical devices are the cause of this guy's behavior, which is really nothing more than a dose of post hoc ergo propter hoc further diluting the reality of motive behind this guy's action. It's like blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine, which is really nothing more than people confronted with tragedy trying to make sense of things rather than to find real solutions...or as Gar stated, to confirm a pre-existing viewpoint.

Evaluating and criticizing things like Palin's crosshairs and the rally at the shooting range are important to do, regularly, regardless of "political climate".

Uncovering the truth behind this man's behavior and the influences therein are extremely important, if not simply because he is on trial and clearly mentally unstable in some way.

But, I fear that these items are more likely mutually exclusive than they are justifiably correlated to the culpability and influence of the gunman in AZ.

It is pretty obvious from what has come about about the killer that (as LooGARsaid) he was not motivated by Palin or any other political party stance... he is simply a psycho who hated the government.

At the same time, I think that it is completely relevant that Palin be apart of this discussion. I have felt for a LONG time that the political atmosphere (which has steadily been seeming to get worse and worse) is completely disgusting--regardless of the party. Unfortunately for Palin, she has found herself in a situation which highlights the absurdity of the frequent sparring between political ideologies.

Putting anyone on a "political hit-list" with gunsight crosshairs and then advising people "don't retreat, reload" is absolutely tasteless and, even though Palin didn't influence this guy, I hope that she realizes the deadly reality of the situation and tones her message down. (And I know it is hoping for a lot, but seriously, if the REST of the political world would take a cue and perhaps, you know, FOCUS ON THEIR STANCES rather than trying to manipulate voters and polls by tearing down their opponent, that would be great.)

I actually said a few posts up that I have made my mind up - that anyone attempting to spin this to their own devices is wrong.

And of course they would be demagogue-ing it, and of course they would be wrong on that too. I just really feel that ascribing any semblance of sanity or rationality to this Loughner's motives in some ways legitimizes the exact speech that people are trying to say should not be legitimate.

I am telling you that the speech is more a product of our time and culture than people realize, as it is harder to get noticed without being extreme. Like rap music, pro-wrestling, and pornography, the influencing of the American people has not necessarily become harsher so much as it has become more puerile and base-level appealing.

It's the difference between Ric Flair saying he's a limousine riding, jet flying, cock of the walk, and Linda McMahon kicking someone in the balls. Same script, different verse. And to change it, you either need to slow down culture (not possible) or make the puerile less appealing (the possibility of this depends on the color of your glasses).

I agree with this in that I see the whole thing as a cultural problem. I just have a lot more of a problem with it and think it absolutely does contribute to an atmosphere of extremism and violence, which leans heavily to the right as far as its political ramifications go since they are the side using most of the harsh and violent language. Basically, I see the political rhetoric as a symptom of a sick society not the cause, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get called out on it. And whether you can connect the dots to this specific incident in a direct way or not, a high profile incident of violence is certainly a good opportunity to speak publicly about the problem in more general terms.

You want to talk about just needing to be heard? Well, how about it being completely valid to speak about important issues of violent political rhetoric at a time when people's attention is focused on political violence as a way of being heard.

Ric Flair reference, nice.

I don't think there should be any imposition of the freedom of speech, but it is the responsibility of the politicians and media to exercise decency and common sense when speaking to the general public who, in general, are pretty easily molded. If something gets said on tv, radio, or the internet, people feel that is validation enough to accept it as truth and allow themselves to be influenced. The problem is that Rush, Beck, Palin and all the other outspoken nutjobs who say things as "entertainment" just to get a rise out of people or act as a form of "checks and balances" are in effect undermining the very freedoms they claim to fight for. Expressing untruths and taking things out of context paradoxically reiterates their points . It seems pretty obvious that said nutjobs are more in it for their own financial and political benefits and less to save the country from self destruction.

Bless your heart Loogs, but "I can't argue this with anybody who already has an opinion..." is 1) middle school take-my-ball-and-go-home logic 2) beneath you and 3) indicative of our inability to tolerate dialogic inquiry into truth, what's best for our country and how to expand our own thinking. We need to be able to talk without demonizing and discounting. The left is OF COURSE as guilty as the the right of overblown rhetoric. Simple observation will conclude that the extremity (since the 1970's) of rhetoric on the right is more violent. "Baby killer" evangelical/fundie rhetoric has led to the assassination of abortion doctors etc. etc. Again, that's not "a partisan reaction", that's summative and statistical.

And the straw man "free speech" canard.... no one is saying to put people into jail for what they say. But what the point is of this sad and uncomfortable post-mortem (sic) is some attempt to hold people accountable. The reductionism of "oh it's because you already hate Palin" obfuscates and disables the transformative power of clear-minded accountability. Which is our cultural standard too much anyway... "me in my way only, fuck you." And culture is formed from language and its use, and how it is defined and commonly understood, even in small corners of the public sphere like online bulletin boards.

We neither know, or don't know, if Tea Party violent imagery (think of the health care Town Houses with speakers inflamed and moving toward the podium in a threatening way...) influenced this guy. But to discount that the Birther climate had an impact is as "previous" as observing that it did. Let's talk the facts about how we've talked to each other in the last decade. Let's consider what talking like this does....

What Bloor and Harry said. I don't advocate limiting free speech, or making anything illegal. I advocate backing the fuck down a little with the gun metaphors, the rally events at shooting ranges, and the complete batshit crazy demonization of "the other side," whoever they are. Period. The kid was nuts, and was maybe not really motivated directly by this, but as I said several pages ago, can't you even talk about calming things down?


...no?

Calm down, Cap'n.

Here's an example of what I would term erudite and non-inflammatory rhetoric from one of the most high toned, thoughtful posters we have. Is this the type of rhetoric you would like to see more of? Is this taking the proverbial heat out of the kitchen of our political environment?




So now we're back to where we've ALWAYS been. "You did it first"/"If they stop we'll stop." etc and so on since before there was a Republic until after we all get uploaded into the mainframe. Here's some reference for you when you want to say we are experiencing the worst, the dirtiest, or the meanest rhetoric of all time. http://www.amazon.com/Mudslingers-Twent ... 777&sr=8-1

I like and agree with Joe Scarbourgh viewpoint on this:

Here's a good story that dovetails nicely with this thread:

Political Insider
Mark DeMoss shuts down his effort to require politicians to play nice — for lack of interest

10:29 am January 11, 2011, by jgalloway

Two years ago, just before Barack Obama was sworn in as president, Christian publicist Mark DeMoss of Buckhead hooked up with Democrat Lanny Davis to launch something called the Civility Project – a movement to require people in politics to play nice.

It was a match of opposites. DeMoss, a Republican, had just finished a stint as Mitt Romney’s liaison to evangelicals in the ’08 presidential campaign. Davis is liberal, and Jewish.

In May, the pair sent a letter to 585 members of Congress and all 50 governors, asking them to sign the following 32-word pledge:

– I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior.

– I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them.

– I will stand against incivility when I see it.

Only three members of Congress complied – Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut; U.S. Reps. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia; and Susan Myrick, a Republican from North Carolina.

Last week, only days before the rampage in Tucson, Ariz., DeMoss shut his experiment down. “I must admit to scratching my head as to why only three members of Congress, and no governors, would agree to what I believe is a rather low bar,” DeMoss wrote to the three who put their names to the petition. He included this paragraph:

Perhaps one of the most surprising results of this project has been the tone and language used by many of those posting comments on our website and following articles on various media websites about the project. Many of them could not be printed or spoken in public media due to vulgar language and vicious personal attacks. Sadly, a majority of these came from fellow conservatives.

Also, you know, did backmasking play a role in those kids who killed themselves back in the 80s?

Was violent or extreme imagery in music responsible for this, Tipper?

heavy metal satanists = candidates for president (Tipper put up as template against which all discussion of language and its impact is held)

again.... how does accountability express itself. what we have isn't working.

For one thing, if you've read my posts in this thread it should be clear that I'm not claiming a direct link from Palin to Loughner. I don't care about direct links. When Bill O'Reilly took to the airwaves and referred to Dr. Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer" for months before he was killed, that wasn't a direct link. Nope. O'Reilly's just an innocent commentator. As an indirect link, however, it should have rendered him unwelcome on any other network for the rest of his broadcast days (it didn't, of course). It's the same thing here. If you're going to encourage a climate where the threat of assassination is deemed a political strategy (eg: "it's time to water the tree of liberty) then you're handing over the moral validation to people like Loughner to grab the gun.

And finally, whatever helps you sleep at night, ol' Gar.

In all honesty this tragedy is probably casting the eyes of attention from the true problem with political discourse. How Fox News scares vulnerable old people into believing the end of America is emminent if Barry holds office one more day.

Barry is ripe for a crazed octogenarian with a gun screaming about their medicare paperwork.

This.


And Dave it's really, REALLY hard to not see your position just as coming from a dude who gets paid to participate in the very climate we're railing against. I know you're more than that, and better than that, but you're not helping by stonewalling.

Anyone who has ever been a boss knows that when you say things, they are not always interpreted as you intended. This gets more pronounced as you go up the ladder. I've heard it called the Foghorn Effect. Therefore, with that status and appearance of authority, there comes significant responsibility. That's where politicians and the media slip out the back door.

Obviously, anyone who will up and shoot a bunch of people has screws loose, but like someone stated above, they don't live in a vacuum. I don't know that the rhetoric has gotten more inflammatory, but I do feel like it's gotten more specific to the 2nd Amendment and guns in the past few years. The worst part is that it's not because Sarah Palin is a big gun nut, it's just because it's politically facile. (Christ, I hunted once when I was probably 14, and I would look like Ted Nugent compared to her shooting that Caribou). She's the David Allan Coe of politics.

In this specific case, I don't see a direct link between Palin and Bachmann and Beck and Loughner. That's not absolution, that's a lucky damn break. Hopefully, they will see this as an opportunity to tone it down. Hopefully the Media will stop putting these one-note-dopes on the air all the damn time in favor of politicians who can share their views more constructively. I'm not holding my breath.

Keep in mind that in 234 years, we've had a duel between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Vice President and a Congressman openly beating a Senator on the floor while people watched. Hell, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann don't come anywhere close to John C. Calhoun or Dick Nixon.