Home › Forums › Open Discussion › AZ Giffords shot, how do we cool the rhetoric?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 10, 2011 at 1:27 am #713450
JoBParticipantjamminj…
it’s not a good day when reasonable people have reason to watch a video like this one from tea party activist Joyce Kaufman…
but reasonable people should watch this video.
it doesn’t help to remain uninformed.
January 10, 2011 at 2:56 am #713451
SmittyParticipantJanuary 10, 2011 at 2:57 am #713452
DPMemberQuoth JoB in #37:
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.
[emphasis added to part of the quote by me]
JoB, re-read that line slowly. I’m sure this was not your intention, but can you see how that might be construed to mean that you think everyone on one side (i.e., the right side) of the political spectrum is consistently advocating violence?
I think we need to be clear that, when we talk about literal calls to violence, we’re talking about fringe behavior on the part of a relatively small number of people. Yes, there is some overlap between the fringe and the mainstream; you can’t get away from that. But that’s going to be true of any group trying to influence public opinion, from political parties, to anti-abortion groups, to animal-rights people, to ecology groups . . . And yes, it does cross the spectrum from Left to Right.
I think Smitty’s point is well-taken here, even though he probably could have explained it better: We shouldn’t conclude that the Arizona shooter is connected to or represents Republicans (or even the Tea Party) for the same reason that we shouldn’t conclude the Ft. Hood shooter represents Muslims. It’s just not fair (or reasonable) to draw conclusions like that.
January 10, 2011 at 4:08 am #713453
JanSParticipantsmitty, re your post in #52…they’re all wrong…and they ALL need to back off. I have no use for Paul Krugman either. No one is saying that the Dems hands are lily white clean. What we are saying is for people to wake up and simply stop it. And to be totally honest with themselves. Already, Sarah Palin’s camp is saying that it wasn’t “crosshairs” , it was surveyors marks…and we all know, me, you, everyone, knows that’s a pile of crap, and we need to call people on it. Otherwise we’re going along with it. This IS NOT a contest to see which side was the more dastardly…it a wake up call to stop it. And that’s starts with us, not the guy in the next block.
January 10, 2011 at 4:09 am #713454
JanSParticipantand sitting there saying things like “more fun”…what the hell “fun” is any of this? You tell me…
January 10, 2011 at 4:11 am #713455
dobroParticipantHere’s something that’s occurred that I find interesting- A spokesperson for Palin publicly stated this…
“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” said Rebecca Mansour”
“…like you see on maps.” I’m not a mapophile (?)but I don’t remember routinely seeing crosshairs (like the kind you see in gun sights) on maps.That seems to me to not be a “misunderstanding” or a “misstatement” but, in fact, just a flat out lie.
So- 1)why would she lie about that?
2)how can you be reasonable with people who will just lie right to your face and have no qualms about it.
3)why is journalism in this day and time so corrupted that statements like this receive no challenge?
January 10, 2011 at 4:31 am #713456
jamminjMember“mean that you think everyone on one side (i.e., the right side) of the political spectrum is consistently advocating violence?”
second amendment remedies (Sharon Angle)
“reloading” (Sarah Palin)
blowing up the New York Times (Ann Coulter)
400% rise in death threats to Obama
Open-carry rallies
Bachmann “armed and dangerous”, “having a revolution every now and then is a good thing”
both sides have nut jobs like I said, its just that once side has PUBLIC CALLS for violence by elected officials, candidates, and publishers, etc.
January 10, 2011 at 4:47 am #713457
CaitParticipantKeith Olbermann said on his show yesterday that he’s been guilty of statements that could very well incite violence too and he has copped to it and pledged to change along with many other pundits as of yesterday. So it’s important to note that no one is coming out smelling like roses here.
If there weren’t democrats fanning the flames too, we wouldn’t have this conflict. Democrats tend to me more careful and eloquent about it on the whole, but it doesn’t mean we all don’t have a part to play. Doesn’t matter how you sugar coat or justify your sentiments, to say that any one whole group of people condoned or knowingly instigated this is the kind of thing that’s going to make this worse. I’m not really sure what’s so hard to understand about that.
What Palin and others did was reckless and ridiculous, but don’t you think that this is a wake up call for them without the public further inciting the riot? Maybe it won’t stop here, but it certainly won’t stop by implying that she’s a hit man. You could say she’s an unintentional conspirator… and I fully believe that the people making violent statements should be prosecuted to the full extent of the LAW for what they did in connection with this. But the court of public opinion makes for one terrible judicial system. It’s not our call. Write a letter demanding that Palin be called to task for conspiracy and you’ll do more than anyone typing at their local blog forum about “one side versus the other”
We all feel so righteous and justified in our political beliefs that no one feels that they need to back down… because you’re RIGHT, aren’t you? Clearly we ALL need to back down. I’m your typical textbook bleeding heart lib and this gave me some serious pause for thought about how I speak about my political views and how terribly divisive my way of speaking about it can be. What’s it going to take for everyone else? If this was a playground we’d all be in time out.
January 10, 2011 at 4:54 am #713458
JoBParticipantDP..
“when we talk about literal calls to violence, we’re talking about fringe behavior on the part of a relatively small number of people.”
I so wish this was true.
what is so insidious about this elephant is that it has become so commonplace that everyone has begun to assume it is innocuous.
“We shouldn’t conclude that the Arizona shooter is connected to or represents Republicans (or even the Tea Party) “
You miss my point if you think that I think this shooter represents the tea party or Republicans.
I doubt very much that he does…
and that is what makes this worse.
The people who play with people’s emotions for political gain using the rhetoric of violence don’t stop to consider whether or not the hate they are unleashing will backfire and become a public menace.
Here again we see a blatant lack of personal responsibility.
In my opinion, these random acts are the direct result of the incendiary language that is bandied about as political foreplay nightly on national television.
Smitty…
it is one thing to place a bulls eye on a map.
the bulls eye symbol has entered popular lexicon as a symbol of emphasis… after all.. we call the dot that precedes a talking point a bullet.
but the crosshairs of a rifle scope are an entirely different matter.
to anyone who has ever been around guns those crosshairs have significant meaning.
But even more than that… in popular culture.. that is the last sight one sees in a film before someone is assassinated.
Any kid who has ever seen an action movie can tell you without any doubt exactly what those crosshairs mean.
Someone is about to be shot.
And no… i am not splitting hairs…
The good news is that so far I don’t have democratic political figures that i need to make those kind of excuses for… and i don’t want them either.
January 10, 2011 at 5:02 am #713459
JanSParticipantdobro…in answer to your question about Sarah Palin, and her camp saying that it’s not crosshairs…it’s called CYA, pure and simple. When she goes to bed at night, alone in the dark, wonder what she’s thinking…or if she even has a thought about it…wonder if she did last night. I know I did.
January 10, 2011 at 5:07 am #713460
JoBParticipantcait…
I take umbrage at the characterization of speaking out against the kind of incendiary rhetoric currently being employed by a large faction of the republican party as inciting a riot.
What i am objecting to is the kind of language that incites actual riots and acts of public mayhem.
i would speak out as loudly if a democratic candidate used that kind of incendiary language. In fact.. i have frequently spoken out when democratic pundits did so.
I do not read the daily KOS to this day because of the incendiary nature of many of his remarks
and i didn’t watch or listen to Keith Oberman at all until he mellowed his stance following the “comic” event in Washington DC.
I don’t even visit the Huffington Report unless linked to a specific article for the same reason.
it is completely possible to destroy your opponent’s argument without resorting to the language of violence …
and i am old enough to remember when the forum of debate was used to do just that.
this is not a mere matter of politics to me.
It is a matter of common decency
and personal responsibility…
I think it’s about time our public figures manned up and shut up.
If they can’t make their point without inciting violence
they don’t have a point to make.
January 10, 2011 at 5:17 am #713461
dobroParticipantI agree that everyone in public office should keep their rhetoric under control but I must admit I can’t think of any quotes from Dems that routinely reference the kind of violence that we’re discussing.
Anybody got any? (within the last 5 years or so,please,not historical) Just curious.
January 10, 2011 at 12:55 pm #713462
HMC RichParticipantDobro, How about the current Commander In Chief. http://fringewire.com/?p=65
August 28, 2004 in Everett. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20040828/NEWS01/408280741
RNC convention from 2008 in St. Paul http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/rnc-protests.html
Using a car in Florida in 2004: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-27/politics/fl.13.harris.attack_1_harris-sarasota-police-sarasota-county-jail?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Madison Wisconsin: Burning a repugnant symbol 2004
//www.channel3000.com/news/3776992/detail.html
Do you remember Tim Eyman getting attacked with “just” a pie causing corneal abrasions and chemical burns. Others subjected to urine laced pies.
Again, the MSM jumps to conclusions before all the facts are in.
But I knew this would happen. It happens almost everytime and then when the facts come out, many forget that they jumped to conclusions and were wrong.
Please don’t act like one side or the other is pure as snow.
We have a tragedy on our hands.
January 10, 2011 at 3:13 pm #713463
SmittyParticipantThank you, DP.
Yes, I should have been more direct than sarcastic.
Bottom line, it’s too early to make any judgement on motive and/or place blame on any (or all) political party or rhetoric. That doesn’t mean that’s not a worthy subject – but to use this situation to launch into “I told you so” is ridiculous, imo.
One friend called him a left-wing pot head, for goodness sake – and we’ve already got people blaming Palin and Beck.
January 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm #713464
JanSParticipantRich…you’re not listening. Both sides are being condemned for their rhetoric…and we need to stop exactly what you’re doing…making it a contest to see who said the worse thing. The motivations of this guy will come out, probably. Yes, he’s a crazy. But, we can’t simply ignore the rhetoric and let it happen because it only affects the crazies…that means we condone it. It’s got to go on hiatus…starting with us…not pointing fingers at others, like we had nothing to do with it. We did..we allowed it to go on…found it acceptable..and kept our mouths shut. And then a sad, sad tragedy like this happens, and wow. At this point I don’t care where it comes from…it simply has to stop.
January 10, 2011 at 4:59 pm #713465
redblackParticipantit should first stop with the people with the $40 million dollar per year radio contracts, and the mega-corporations with their big money cable tee vee bullhorns.
sadly, though, making us fight and occasionally kill one another sells ad space. even better if you can use division to get your lobbyists in on the act.
informative reportage and fact-finding is boring.
except here at WSB, of course.
January 10, 2011 at 5:03 pm #713466
JoBParticipantHMCRich,,,
out of respect to you i read every one of your links.
really.. you think the imagery of fisticuffs is the same as the imagery of assassination?
and you think that imagery originated with Obama?
you think a pie in the face is the same a bombs in the office and assassinating political opponents?
you think a thrown punch equals “if votes don’t work guns will” or bringing an assault rifle to a campaign rally?
Have you become so acclimated to the rhetoric that is currently being spewed by your favorite pundits that you think it’s ok?
A young man has been charged today with the attempted assassination of a member of congress.
Assassination..
not bitch slap
not pie in the eye
Assassination.
There is no question whatsoever about his intended target…
or that he thought he would go out in a blaze of glory.. assassinated himself.
there is no jumping to conclusions here.
When you create an environment in which assassinating a political opponent is seen as an inevitable next step then people are going to get killed.
January 10, 2011 at 5:12 pm #713467
JoBParticipantSmitty,
this bears repeating.
When you create an atmosphere in which killing an opponent is seen as the logical next step then you are a complete idiot if you think that someone is not going to get killed.
I have no idea what the young man’s politics were… whether he was a disgruntled “lefty” or an adherent to the right…
but i was treated to a huge dose of the political climate and the rhetoric in Arizona created by the far right in that state by mature middle class people in October…
people i personally have known for decades and never would have expected to use that kind of rhetoric.
There is no question that the sheriff was spot on when he said that it was only a matter of time before something like this happened in that climate.
And it’s not going to get any better until we address the overheated political atmosphere that has created that rhetoric.
January 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm #713468
bebecatMemberJanuary 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm #713469
yeah-meParticipantWell he purchased the gun at a Sportman and he did it completely legally as he had nothing in his background that made it illegal to purchase a gun.
.
Poor little girl. Born on 9-11 during a tragedy and then killed by another one.
January 10, 2011 at 5:25 pm #713470
JoBParticipantyeah-me…
he had nothing in his background that made it illegal for him to purchase a gun because for whatever reason the state and/or school and/or his parents did not pursue his mental health issues after the community college issued his parents a letter stating that he could not return to the school without a mental health evaluation ensuring that he was not a risk to others.
his parents might not have had many options since he was of legal age…
and it is likely he didn’t have health insurance since he wasn’t in school…
but someone somewhere dropped a very big ball.
January 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm #713471
JoBParticipantbebecat…
i read your link.
the fact that people like this young man exist
and that our society does nothing to help them in spite of multiple warning flags
is exactly why the hate filled rhetoric of the right is so dangerous.
if ordinary people think it is ok to cause hatred of political opponents… then what kind of approval do you think that same rhetoric gives unbalanced minds like that one?
We might as well cock the gun and hold it to our own heads.
January 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm #713472
AndyParticipant“We might as well cock the gun and hold it to our own heads.”
In a discussion about the danger of using violent rhetoric, this seems a bit misplaced.
We are a petty people. These discussions get way out of hand, and our media/political celebrities feed us more of it, because we have a seemingly insatiable need to stick it to our opponents. We have replaced a desire for honest victory with a sad enjoyment of gloating over the other guy’s losses. So we flock to these shows that we claim to despise, their ratings climbing all the time, and gather up a bunch of information to use in arguments at the office and on blog forums.
In my mind there is no doubt that every time one of these things occur, the most common reactions in America are these two, depending on your political camp:
1. Happiness that you get to use this against your opponents
2. Disappointment that your opponents get to use this against you.
We may not be aware of it, and we are certainly not admitting it to ourselves, but those reactions are there. Sure, we do a lot of lofty posturing about the human tragedy, but then we segue seamlessly into “see, this is your fault!”
Heck, this topic was started with a title asking to stop the rhetoric, and wasted no time laying heavy and specific blame.
The shooter? We know what’s wrong with the shooter, he has psychological issues. We need to be asking ourselves what the hell is wrong with us. And I mean that in an at home, quiet introspection kind of way.
January 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm #713473
CaitParticipantSomeone’s missing the point here. We were asked as a group to look up instances where dems had used violent imagery. It just so happens that Rich found some stuff dems won’t want to hear. No one wants to admit that “their team” or even they themselves are part of the problem… so, what hope do we have? Seriously think aboutit. If you read the first link, you’ll notice that Obama said that we were to bring a “gun to a knife fight” with opposition… What about that doesn’t say assassination to you?
This is what I’m preaching here, people. Everyone here is pointing fingers and it’s not helping and it’s not relevant. Both sides have blood on their hands. Both sides say and do things that are completely irresponsible when left to the translation of a mentally unstable individual with a gun. Don’t think that this couldn’t have happened to a conservative politician. Don’t think that there aren’t mentally unstable people on both sides. Don’t think that both sides aren’t fanning the flames – the evidence is right there staring you in the face as much as we feel like we can “type it away”.
At what point do we ALL sit back and say a mea culpa for this? Goading and belittling people on a blog forum ain’t gonna help either. How does calling anyone with a certain opinion a “fool” right out of the gate help foster a good political environment anyway?
I’ll be honest, I can’t believe I’m arguing these points. But seriously – if we all don’t change our ways and stop fighting fire with fire we’re asking for more of the same to happen.
Everyone on the political scene (left, right, loud, quiet, EVERYONE) needs to be put in time out and think about what happened and return to recess when we’ve learned to how to behave ourselves and watch our mouths. Seriously. Legislation and talking points can wait until we figure out how to quit friggin’ shooting each other.
January 10, 2011 at 8:29 pm #713474
yeah-meParticipantJob – not saying he should have been able to purchase a gun – just reiterating what the news said. With our current gun laws there was nothing illegal about his gun purchase.
Parents? Do we even know if he has any? basically he was of legal age and record to purchase a gun. Who determines how crazy someone is if they are an adult and choose not to seek help?
I agree with the original premise that we need to stop the hate mongering in this country.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.