Home › Forums › Open Discussion › AZ Giffords shot, how do we cool the rhetoric?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 9, 2011 at 7:21 pm #713425
DPMemberWithout blaming anything on anyone, can we at least agree that putting cross-hairs over a political enemy or imagining someone as “already dead” are unwise and inflammatory things to do — even if they are Constitutionally protected speech?
I assume that Ms. Palin has already taken down the cross-hairs map, and it sounds, from Smitty’s comment, like Daily KOS has already done the same with a similarly inflammatory page.
It’s not so much that this kind of speech is inherently wrong, it’s just that, in the present climate we have to be a little more judicious in the way we phrase things.
I don’t have so much of a problem with phrases like “a little revolution,” but whenever I use that term, I try to be careful to plant the word “peaceful” somewhere nearby, just so there won’t be any confusion as to what I’m talking about.
It’s challenging — but still possible — to use strong, evocative language to make a point, without inciting crazy people to acts of mayhem.
—David
January 9, 2011 at 7:25 pm #713426
dobroParticipantOh, one other thing. Phrases like this…
“Unlike the Left …” are a big source of our communications problems. I’m an individual person with my own beliefs that I’m quite willing to talk about and defend and not all of my ideas would fall under your blanket “the Left”. Why not acknowledge my personhood and address me instead of talking about “the Left”? It just sets up a phony dichotomy and makes it harder to talk about what you or I really believe.
January 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm #713427
dobroParticipantDP, the daily kos page was taken down by the poster, not by the website. It was not a “similarly inflammatory” post. If you want to know more “facts” about it, read the link I posted. It’s by the original poster of the page that is the subject of this distracting false equivalaence “everybody does it” baloney.
January 9, 2011 at 7:54 pm #713428
RarelyEverParticipanthubby had a great idea last night – anytime any politician gets shot, five representatives from the other side of the aisle get replaced with representatives of the other party. that should cut down on politically motivated assassinations.
weird, it just dawned on me that you guys only have two parties.. one would think politics wouldn’t be as polarizing if your congress was made up of, say, five parties who would have to form coalitions to enact legislation. in fact, having more parties who represent more facetted beliefs might get rid of this red-state/blue state nonsense altogether. at the very least the map would be prettier at election time. :)
January 9, 2011 at 8:07 pm #713429
SmittyParticipantCross-hairs and/or bulls eyes, I suppose:
http://patterico.com/files/2011/01/Markos-2.jpg
It’s KoS’s Fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 9, 2011 at 8:16 pm #713430
RarelyEverParticipantwell, be proud of yourself, smitty. you just totally won this argument with your research!
January 9, 2011 at 8:30 pm #713431
dobroParticipantSo a bullseye was posted on one page of a blog that receives this many hits
Average Per Day 606,807
Average (page views) Per Visit 1.1
Palin’s map is posted and promoted by a national celebrity,former VP candidate, reported on by every national news outlet…yeah, exactly the same thing.
January 9, 2011 at 8:36 pm #713432
RarelyEverParticipantdobro – don’t even engage at this level. it only almost lends credibility to a non-point.
January 9, 2011 at 8:52 pm #713433
JanSParticipantwe all need to stop the finger pointing, and realize that it’s us..we’re doing it. You, me, simply by being divisive and blaming the Left or the Right. What Sarah Palin did was wrong…what the gentleman (I use that term loosely) opponent of Congresswoman Giffords did was wrong…Sharon Angle in Nevada said…we need to exercise our second amendment rights…wrong again. It doesn’t blatantly come out and say the obvious…but what it implies to the crazies of the world is huge. We all need to denounce it, no matter where it comes from…or..we condone it. Again…we can’t have it both ways. What you say and how you say it DOES matter, from the bottom to the top.
January 9, 2011 at 8:54 pm #713434
DPMemberdobro has an excellent point here:
Why not acknowledge my personhood and address me instead of talking about “the Left”? It just sets up a phony dichotomy and makes it harder to talk about what you or I really believe.
And RarelyEver: I am 100% with you that we need more of a multi-party system in this country. I believe that Instant Runoff Voting (or IRV) could go a long way toward helping us achieve that.
A parliamentary-style system like the UK’s might be a good thing too, because in that system you nearly always have to form coaltions in order to get anything done. But parliamentary systems have their failings as well, as recent elections in Britain have demonstrated.
Also, in a parliamentary system, a very small minority party can sometimes excercise influence far beyond the numbers of voters it represents. When the Israeli Knesset is evenly divided between the two major parties (Likud and Labor), these parties will often try to woo delegates from the tiny ultra-orthodox religious parties. Political weirdness then transpires.
I guess this would be equivalent to the role played by our few Independent delegates to Congress.
January 9, 2011 at 9:02 pm #713435
JoBParticipantSmitty…
so let me understand this…
you think the phrase “dead to me”
is the same as a death threat?
you would have done well to search the phrase before repeating your claim.
I am a fossil and even i have no trouble defining that term…
the urban dictionary is a bit more melodramatic than i would have been in defining the term
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dead%20to%20me
but it basically means that you intend to ignore someone.
if i ignore you on the West Seattle blog…
do i kill you?
nope.. you still post.
I just don’t have to see your posts.
I will admit that a political bullseye list from a commentator is a bit radical but i don’t think it would take me long to turn up hit lists from several different “conservative” commentators that are equally egregious.
the key word in that comment would be several.. over long periods of time…
turn on FOX news next week (they’ll tone it down for a while) and you will have no trouble finding a good example.
there is another point that you seem to be missing…
the biggest difference between the KOS and Sarah Palin is that he is not a political figure…
he has no presidential aspirations.
Ms Palin does.
you used the muslim shooter at Fort Bragg as an example…
Well.. here’s one from Micheal Moore by way of JanS…
Michael Moore tweeted this yesterday:
“If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he be sitting right now?
That speaks to culpability
As for the political views of the young man in question…
we do have info from his myspace page which has since been removed…
his comments there are quite political.
It is possible the media will spin this story and we will have another lone gunman…
like we had in the 60s…
Hopefully… like the 60s..
we will have had enough of lone gunman.
Valvashon was right on target…
putting mentally imbalanced people on the street and giving them access to weapons is a very poor plan for public security.
January 9, 2011 at 9:04 pm #713436
JoBParticipantJanS..
i have to respectfully disagree with you when yo say it is the finger pointing that is the problem.
there is a huge difference between disagreement and advocating violence.
in this case.. the elephant in the room is that one side of the political spectrum is consistently advocating violence against those who disagree with them.
If we don’t point out the elephant in the room
we are as culpable as the apologists.
edit… my apologies..
when i went back to re-read your post after reacting… i ofund we get to the same place.
it isn’t disagreement that is the problem
it’s violence inducing behavior
and there is no way we can tolerate that if we want any illusion of public safety.
January 9, 2011 at 9:14 pm #713437
redblackParticipantjan, we don’t need to merely denounce it. we need to prosecute it fully and show that our judicial system and law enforcement will be intolerant of violent political intolerance and hate.
btw, i, like congresswoman giffords, am what is referred to as a “second amendment democrat.” (and, like me, she’s hardly a blue dog, despite what the media has been saying.) i’m liberal in all things, and i believe that liberal gun ownership – and requisite safety laws! – is part of who we are as a people, right or wrong. having said that, i agree with bans on certain kinds of weapons whose only purpose is assault on other people.
if you want to play with assault weapons or feel the need to protect your stuff with an M-16, join the national guard. (or a glock with a 20-round clip. how many people need 20 rounds to defend their safety?)
anyway, we should treat domestic threats to our government and duly-elected officials as roughly as we treat foreign threats.
(that includes BP.)
January 9, 2011 at 9:15 pm #713438
JanSParticipantit even started in this thread…it’s the Lefties, no it’s the Conservatives…well, guess what..it’s all of us..forget the labels.Yes…that’s why I said we need to denounce it…or we condone it. Of course, we all have our personal feelings and opinions, based on strong political beliefs..Smitty has them, I have them; but this isn’t the time for that. It just needs to stop.What a big wake up call this is. We need to hold all accountable for the things that they promote and put forward.
January 9, 2011 at 9:22 pm #713439
JanSParticipantredblack, I can agree with you. I don’t object to guns…I object to the sale of any type of gun to anyone and everyone. It’s a gun, there has to be a better way of making sure that it’s going into safe ore semi-safe hands. Too many get them just by walking in and asking. I also object to things like the opponent of hers in AZ bringing a rifle to a political rally because we’re gun totin’ people down here..and asking others to shoot them to join him in “defeating” her. That’s not what the second amendment calls for.
I would be interested in where this guy got the gun that he used in the shooting..how legally or illegally it was come by.I’ve always thought that if one is a law abiding citizen, one should have no objection to a background check, or at least a day or two hold, before you can have the weapon you want to purchase. But that’s just me…others will disagree with that.
January 9, 2011 at 9:29 pm #713440
valvashonParticipantPlease note that in the context of this thread “Fox” and “Fox News” refers to the cable channel with the full name of “Fox News Channel” and features such luminaries as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. It does not refer to our local “Q-13 Fox News” which is organizationally, operationally and editorially separate from cable’s FNC.
Thank you.
JoB- thanks for the shout out about the mentally ill and access to guns- I’d also like to point out the DawsonCt came to the same conclusion.
January 9, 2011 at 9:39 pm #713441
SmittyParticipantThe point is that none of you KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS MOTIVES or POLITICS so why the quick judgement by some that Fox, Rush and Palin are guilty?
You know NOTHING about this guys intentions or politics yet. NOTHING. It’s ridiculous to even bring it up! It could prove to be true, but within 24 short hours it is almost considered a FACT.
WSB message board is one thing, but CNN and the rest of the MSM are doing it as well. They shouldn’t even have the discussion unless it’s proven true. They didn’t discuss it after Ft Hood (let’s not be too quick to judge!), so why now? I’ll give you one guess.
And yes dobro – for goodness sakes “don”t engage at this level” – we are on the WSB message board after al! LOL!
Unreal.
January 9, 2011 at 9:54 pm #713442
JoBParticipantSmitty…
if you think the big bad liberal press is out to get conservatives.. think again.
this is being discussed because it is the elephant in the room that is literally killing people.
ABORTION DOCTORS DESERVE TO DIE
oh.. i didn’t mean that you should kill an actual person
RIFLE CROSSHAIRS ON DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSPEOPLE COUPLED WITH ELIMINATE TH THREAT AND GUN TOTING RHETORIC
oh.. i didn’t mean that you should open fire in a Safeway parking lot on people i put rife crosshairs … ah… i mean surveyors marks… on.
It would be one thing if this kind of rhetoric was coming just from political pundits…
but it has crossed the line big time.
right into the rhetoric of our political leaders.
Smitty… i don’t know about you …
but i am not too keen on setting the mentally imbalanced…
or those just plain too stupid to know any better..
out on our streets with guns.
And yet.. that is exactly what Sarah’s rhetoric promotes… her and that little Michelle from Minnesota who can’t take time to attend political rallies in her own district because she is exploring a presidential bid… and…
This is exactly what winning at all costs looks like…
it ain’t pretty.
January 9, 2011 at 9:57 pm #713443
RarelyEverParticipantsmitty – well, i’ll be.. you’re right! this is just proof of the vast left-wing conspirancy that’s been permeating our society, having been relentlessly promoted by left-leaning media outlets who are hell bent -hell bent, i tell you!- on bringing down the greatest country in the world!
only, why would we do that? what’s in it for me? i mean, really – where’s my motivation?
January 9, 2011 at 10:17 pm #713444
CaitParticipantI think the idea of fighting outrage with outrage is dangerous. It’s literally the crux of what we’re talking about here.
January 9, 2011 at 10:20 pm #713445
RarelyEverParticipantdhg – omg, i’m a super-loser. i just re-read your header for this thread. epic fail, rarelyever. i apologize to smitty for my sarcasm; i realize that this is probably NOT the best way to tone down the rhetoric. my bad. :(
January 9, 2011 at 10:28 pm #713446
dhgParticipantSmitty: Much like Rush, you put words into other people’s mouths. I NEVER STATED that this killer was a Fox News junkie, nor did I say he was a right winger. Pay attention. I am using this event to state that I believe Fox New Channel has let their rhetoric get out of control.
I don’t know what your point is about the ft hood shooting. Are you trying to claim that all Muslims are terrorists? You keep alluding to it without actually saying anything.
I am using this shooting to raise the issue of overheated rhetoric. You do not respond except with sarcasm. The Fox New Channel has convinced much of America that Obama is anti-American. They feed the “angry black man” stereotype to whip up the masses. Rush often says that the left hates America. This has to stop.
January 9, 2011 at 11:12 pm #713447
SmittyParticipantdhg said: “Smitty: Much like Rush, you put words into other people’s mouths. I NEVER STATED that this killer was a Fox News junkie, nor did I say he was a right winger.”
dhg said” The rightys are already claiming that this is just one eccentric guy but I lay the blame on Fox.”
Huh? Hard to argue with someone who argues with themselves….
January 9, 2011 at 11:51 pm #713448
JanSParticipantsmitty..let’s really pick this apart. Nowhere in that statement does dhg say anything about the shooter. He just lays the blame for it happening on Fox, since they promote the people spewing the rhetoric…but he never mentioned the shooter himself…so…can we all please just get away from I blame you, you blame me..he said, she said? PLEASE?!!! You are just adding to the problem…we’re all to blame…we accept it every day, we put up with it. Time to change our behavior. And I include myself in that. Time we acted like educated adults.
January 10, 2011 at 12:06 am #713449
jamminjMemberhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJP9xB5Eoa0
“If ballots don’t work, bullets will”
guess which side of the political spectrum Joyce Kaufman falls under. And yes, I will finger point when cr@p like this becomes a talking point (AND being cheered for). Rhetoric does have consequences. There are nut jobs on either side of the spectrum. It’s just on one side they get talk shows and elected to office.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.