The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords

Started by Vekseid, January 08, 2011, 08:32:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vekseid

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona?ft=1&f=1001&sc=nd&sc=nd

QuoteArizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was critically injured and a federal judge killed, along with at least five others, Saturday in Tucson when a man opened fire during a meet-and-greet outside of a supermarket.

A 9-year-old girl was among those confirmed dead, as was John Roll, chief judge of U.S. District Court of Arizona. At least a dozen people were injured, including members of Giffords' staff.

The alleged gunman was tackled and held by people at the event until police arrived and took him into custody. Law enforcement sources told NPR the suspect was 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner.

At a news conference Saturday night, Pima County, Ariz. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik declined to name the suspect, but said he "has kind of a troubled past — I can tell you that — and we are not convinced he acted alone."
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was re-elected to a third term in November.

Officials have a photograph of a second "person of interest," a 50-year-old white male, Dupnik said."We have an individual we are actively in pursuit of, but I cannot tell you who he is at this point," the sheriff said.

The suspect still had ammunition in his weapon when he was tackled, Dupnik said. Law enforcement officials had previous contact with the suspect and he had made threats, the sheriff said.

Giffords was specifically targeted, Dupnik said.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09capital.html

Quote
...

Ms. Giffords was also among a group of embattled Democratic House candidates who were featured on the Web site of Sarah Palin’s political action committee with cross hairs over their districts, a fact that disturbed Ms. Giffords at the time.

“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” Ms. Giffords said last March. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.”

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-dead-dies_n_806220.html

Quote
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, speaking about Arizona:

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

"It's not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included. And that's the sad thing of what's going on in America. Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/rep-giffords-socalled-hit-list-dems-targeted-sarah-palin/

Quote
...

Jesse Kelly, Giffords' Republican opponent in the 2010 mid-term elections, similarly employed guns in a campaign event. He staged an event in July asking supporters to "get on target" and "remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" -- all while shooting "a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

...

And this is where the fascist wing of American politics has taken us.

Obtaining power by any means necessary is a central tenet of fascism. This includes the use of propaganda (commentators on Fox seem to think that she was a republican gunned down by democrats - how delusional can you get?), misinformation, and of course, the threat and use of violence to achieve political ends.

Quote
Her father Spencer Gifford, 75, wept when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.

"Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole tea party."

The dad, who was rushing to University Medical Center in Tuscon, said that politicians constantly faced danger.

"They always get threat[ened]," Gifford cried.

What a way to begin the year.

Sandman02

  I've seen this story on a few different news websites already, but I have never seen the story tied together with so many pertinent quotes/references. Well done.

  Of course, people will say that this was some kind of lone wolf nut, and that no mainstream tea partier or republican actually would condone a senseless killing like this, and they'd be right to an extent, but this is still indicative of the fact that the right-wingers have been irresponsibly slinging their propaganda and prodding people's fears with misinformation, and this *is* the ultimate result of that. It would be nice if the Republicans took some ownership of this, but they won't - they'll only spin the story as a way to "prove" how angry people are against health care reform, etc. It's a sad state of affairs, and I'm only in my twenties. It's hard to know whether or not we're hitting a new low or whether we've always been this discombobulated.

  Pretty soon people will have to see that for all their bluster, Republicans have no tenable solutions of their own. ... Won't they?

Silverfyre

What really disgusts me is how desensitized the general public is about things like this, especially over an anonymous medium like the Internet.  The very fact that politicians like Sarah Palin would use anything alluding to targeting and killing another person is sickening.  This was not some lone wolf shooter.  He is a product of a whole line of thinking that is born out of fascism, just like Vekseid suggested.  Scary times ahead.


Vekseid

Sarah Palin took that infographic down today.

There are rumors that an explosive device was found and that there were multiple shooters. No reliable word on that yet. I haven't heard of or seen any cheering of her death, but there are some rather whack conspiracy theories running around. "Obama did it to make her a martyr!" ...

The guy they have caught is quite thoroughly deranged. He belonged in a mental institution. But we don't do that any longer, we force them to live on the street.

He was a known potential threat. But we can't fund investigations into all of these people. That would be a 'nanny state'.

But those investigations will come. Will we get the transparent investigations we observe, that people can feel confident in rendered judgments in public court hearings, or more people locked up for indefinite terms in unknown situations without trial?

But allowing demagogues to spread their vitriol and media organizations to spread their lies without fear is the greatest sin of all. You have a responsibility to those who listen to you, who heed your advice and your words. If you abuse the trust that society places in you, you are the one at fault.

Silverfyre

Quote from: Vekseid on January 08, 2011, 09:49:10 PM

But allowing demagogues to spread their vitriol and media organizations to spread their lies without fear is the greatest sin of all. You have a responsibility to those who listen to you, who heed your advice and your words. If you abuse the trust that society places in you, you are the one at fault.

I couldn't have said it better myself.


Vekseid


Jude

#6
I can't help but feel that gun policy important in civilizing the current level of discourse.  You've got Republicans that, on the whole, are just completely enamored with their right to own an object that does nothing but kill people (sure, you can kill someone who is attacking you, but that's all it is for -- that and hunting).  They encourage their voters to bring them to rallies, have events about firearms, and regularly speak of them as if they were as vital and important as medicine.

Even if we can agree that gun ownership should remain legal, that doesn't mean we have to glorify it and pretend that it's patriotic to own a weapon and know how to use it.  Owning pornography is legal as well, but you don't see people parading around their playboy collection in the name of freedom during campaign stops (and I'm sure we can all agree that pornography is relatively harmless by comparison).

EDIT:  Those videos make no sense whatsoever.  All I managed to glean from them is that he's a libertarian sort, doesn't care much for religion (which is corroborated by other people's accounts of him), and he's really for returning to the gold/silver backed currency.

Callie Del Noire

#7
Quote from: Jude on January 08, 2011, 10:26:07 PM
I can't help but feel that gun policy important in civilizing the current level of discourse.  You've got Republicans that, on the whole, are just completely enamored with their right to own an object that does nothing but kill people (sure, you can kill someone who is attacking you, but that's all it is for -- that and hunting).  They encourage their voters to bring them to rallies, have events about firearms, and regularly speak of them as if they were as vital and important as medicine.

Even if we can agree that gun ownership should remain legal, that doesn't mean we have to glorify it and pretend that it's patriotic to own a weapon and know how to use it.  Owning pornography is legal as well, but you don't see people parading around their playboy collection in the name of freedom during campaign stops (and I'm sure we can all agree that pornography is relatively harmless by comparison).


I'm a republican, a gun owner and totally tired of having folks throw up Palin as the 'typical Republican'. I'm an admittedly MODERATE republican, with a different view on specific issues from the party platform (Birth Control, Pro-Choice, and a few other points. I'm all for small governement, but I want some regulation of fire arms). Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk are NOT the typical republican, just the loudest ones.

I really think the media needs to back off and give the investigators time to look into this. I watched a 20 minute clip of the press conference today. The poor man at the podium had to keep saying 'can't dislose that right now', 'can't discuss that as it is part of the ongoing investigation'. I was having flashbacks of the poor cop who snapped at the press during the beltway sniper incident.

Addittional Note: I respect the President, I can't say there have been a lot of men in his office that I did when they were in office. If it came down to Sarah Palin or President Obama, I'd have to say that he carries more issues that I agree with than she does. She outright scares me. She scared me when she stupidly put up those target graphics last fall.


Oniya

#8
Quote from: Jude on January 08, 2011, 10:26:07 PM
EDIT:  Those videos make no sense whatsoever.  All I managed to glean from them is that he's a libertarian sort, doesn't care much for religion (which is corroborated by other people's accounts of him), and he's really for returning to the gold/silver backed currency.

It's a lot of 'If A, then B', followed by asserting A, and concluding B.  A only occasionally makes any sense, which means he's arguing from false precepts on several occasions.  Don't get me into the whole 'if BCE doesn't start, ADE can't begin' thing.  It makes my mathematical brain seize up.

How does one distribute a currency 'lethally'?  (end of first video)  I have this image of someone loading a handful of dimes into a blunderbuss.  He also neglects one key aspect of creating one's own currency:  Someone else has to accept that it has value.  I can go out, get some sheet metal disks and imprint them with a pretty picture and date*.  I've seen this done with certain campaign-style LARPS.  However, unless you can convince another person that five of those metal disks are worth a piece of bread (or whatever), you have a bunch of shiny metal disks.



*by the way, A.D.E. is completely meaningless.  B.C.E. means 'Before the Common Era', and is a term archaeologists use to avoid 'Before Christ'.  A.D. means Anno Domine, or Year of Our Lord.  The archaeological equivalent is 'C.E.'.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sandman02

  It's not clear whether the purpose of the video was to warn against inflation, and its possible detrimental effects (devaluing your currency to drive down the price of your exported goods could be considered "lethal" to other countries, I suppose), or whether he is looking to some sort of apocalyptic scenario where paper currency is suddenly meaningless.

  The videos are essentially meaningless, but they do suggest that this awful shooting was due to some pseudo ivory tower bullshit. Sounds like another case of fighting for some netherworld cause while neglecting the fundamentals of life and character, such as "love thy neighbor."

  They say that power corrupts, and having a gun that can kill a human being with each bullet you feed in the chamber is certainly power. Despite what Charleton Heston says, I think there may be a connection between such a pro-gun culture and the fostering of fanaticism. Gun ownership is a constitutional right, but for fuck's sake don't fire an automatic weapon at your political rallies to score points with the crazies.

Aeval

Talk about desensitization of the general public..I could not believe it when I opened the Sunday paper here in Michigan..the front page left column (about 2 inches wide) talked about the shooting but the MAIN coverage on the front page( 9 inches worth of space!) was "GM'S MR. INTENSITY" (talking about the new CEO)..Really? HE is more important than the loss of innocent life..SIX INNOCENT VICTIMS?!!

“Tomorrow may be hell, but today was a good writing day, and on the good writing days nothing else matters.”
― Neil Gaiman

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Aeval on January 09, 2011, 10:39:33 AM
Talk about desensitization of the general public..I could not believe it when I opened the Sunday paper here in Michigan..the front page left column (about 2 inches wide) talked about the shooting but the MAIN coverage on the front page( 9 inches worth of space!) was "GM'S MR. INTENSITY" (talking about the new CEO)..Really? HE is more important than the loss of innocent life..SIX INNOCENT VICTIMS?!!

Don't tear yourself up on that Aeval, I suspect part of that is your location. Michigan is still heavily invested in the auto industry right? (Not to mention I'm sure the paper's editor isn't entirely clueful :D )

I find the whole event depressing. A lot of anti-gun sediment coming up to bulldoze over the tragedy. The cynical part of me whispers that they most likely wish the congresswoman as well as the judge had died. I'm trying very hard to keep that critter locked up.

Looking over the videos I get the feeling that there is a disconnect. It feels like a much more serious version of the break between my train of thought and disconnects when I was a rapid cycling bipolar. Much much worse. I expect you'll find something wrong with the suspect, something biochemical in his head.

Doesn't justify what he did. God above it doesn't, but I wonder how he could get that BAD without someone noticing.

Major Major

Quote from: Aeval on January 09, 2011, 10:39:33 AM
Talk about desensitization of the general public..I could not believe it when I opened the Sunday paper here in Michigan..the front page left column (about 2 inches wide) talked about the shooting but the MAIN coverage on the front page( 9 inches worth of space!) was "GM'S MR. INTENSITY" (talking about the new CEO)..Really? HE is more important than the loss of innocent life..SIX INNOCENT VICTIMS?!!

There's an allegorical story that fits here rather well: it's a supposed comment by a British Newspaper editor from about the 1910's.

"In order to be newsworthy, it has have either 100 dead Chinamen, 10 dead Italians, or 1 dead Englishman." Presumably the same applied in this case.

Star Safyre

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 09, 2011, 11:34:10 AM
Doesn't justify what he did. God above it doesn't, but I wonder how he could get that BAD without someone noticing.

He did live with his parents.  They had to have known something was seriously wrong or at least that his mental condition was worsening.  Yes, he is legally an adult, but parental responsibility does not stop at 18, especially when the child is mentally ill or handicapped.  If they had reason to believe he was a danger to himself or others, they had a moral and legal responsibility to get him help.  I hope this will make involuntary commitment, such as California's 5150 or Florida's Baker Act, a nation-wide issue with appropriate legislation.
My heaven is to be with him always.
|/| O/O's / Plots / tumblr / A/A's |/|
And I am a writer, writer of fictions
I am the heart that you call home
And I've written pages upon pages
Trying to rid you from my bones

Trieste

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 09, 2011, 11:34:10 AM
I find the whole event depressing. A lot of anti-gun sediment coming up to bulldoze over the tragedy. The cynical part of me whispers that they most likely wish the congresswoman as well as the judge had died. I'm trying very hard to keep that critter locked up.

They might yet get their wish; she is not out of the woods yet, and she DID get shot in the head.

Star Safyre

James Brady lived and spoke out effectively for gun-control.

Regardless, I hope people don't lose sight of the greatest tragedy of this: rest in peace, Christina-Taylor.
My heaven is to be with him always.
|/| O/O's / Plots / tumblr / A/A's |/|
And I am a writer, writer of fictions
I am the heart that you call home
And I've written pages upon pages
Trying to rid you from my bones

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Star Safyre on January 09, 2011, 11:57:50 AM
James Brady lived and spoke out effectively for gun-control.

Regardless, I hope people don't lose sight of the greatest tragedy of this: rest in peace, Christina-Taylor.

Again.. another point in the list of things in this incident that make me sad.

Oniya

Quote from: Star Safyre on January 09, 2011, 11:47:13 AM
He did live with his parents.  They had to have known something was seriously wrong or at least that his mental condition was worsening.  Yes, he is legally an adult, but parental responsibility does not stop at 18, especially when the child is mentally ill or handicapped.  If they had reason to believe he was a danger to himself or others, they had a moral and legal responsibility to get him help.  I hope this will make involuntary commitment, such as California's 5150 or Florida's Baker Act, a nation-wide issue with appropriate legislation.

It can be surprising how difficult it is to see something like that, especially when you live with it every day.  There was a case in Massachusetts recently involving John Odgren, a high school kid, who - for no apparent reason - cornered another kid in the school bathroom and stabbed him to death.  (The commentators made a lot over the fact that he had Aspergers, but as I followed the trial, it was clear that there were other known issues that were a more likely influence, including BPD.)  People around a person who is getting slowly worse over time get acclimatized, the same way that if you're in a room that's gradually cooling you don't notice it as readily as if you walk into an air-conditioned room from the sweltering summer day.

Add to that the fact that Loughner probably knew that the things he was contemplating were against the law.  He probably did everything in his power to keep his parents from finding out about his radical ideas (and assumed, apparently correctly, that they wouldn't track down his YouTube account).  I notice that the YouTube accounts that actually have his name as the channel name are 'mirrors', or at least are created more recently than the Classitup10 account that Veks linked to - and there's some commentary that suggests that Classitup10 wasn't his original account either.  His MySpace account name, that has been taken down, also wasn't his actual name.  Depending on how Internet-savvy his parents were (there are still some who are near-clueless about how to track things down), that may have been sufficient to keep them off his track.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Revolverman

I really hope you sane Americans can get this under control, because this is starting to look like the start of an insurrection. This scares the crap out of me.

Callie Del Noire

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/09/arizona.shooting.rhetoric/index.html

I don't think it's as bad as that Revolverman, but it's been a long time in building. A lot of people on both sides of the party divide have been forgetting one little thing. The person you're arguing with is a human too. They feel, love, bleed and can die. And that is a tragedy.

The link I put up was one of many I found where our leaders are starting to do just that. Lead. Take charge and shape the nation they swore to serve. I hope (again shoving my inner cynic in his closet) that they recall this for a long long time and look up works like 'compromise', 'courtesy' and such in the months to come. I have always felt the best benefit to the people didn't come from one party or another but somewhere in the middle, in the process of compromise and debate. By working for the common good.

I have started to feel the two party system had become a weakness for the US since you don't have to build a consensus government, such as in the UK, to govern.

AtlasEros

This was a really disturbing situation.  Executive protection is part of what I do for a living, this has been the topic so far of 4 meetings I've been in.  Sad to see so many lives needlessly lost, so many families affected.
O/O

Silverfyre



Trieste

#22
Quote from: Silverfyre on January 09, 2011, 02:37:17 PM
And this just makes me even more sickened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html?ref=fb&src=sp

*tears out hair*

The more attention you give those fuckers, the more they'll do the shit they do. That includes reading/linking/commenting on news stories that give them coverage. If it becomes more trouble than it's worth for news agencies to cover the WBC, then they'll stop doing it.

So stop feeding the fire, please.

Edited in order to insert the quote of the post I was referring to, in order to preserve context. ;)

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Trieste on January 09, 2011, 02:46:58 PM
*tears out hair*

The more attention you give those fuckers, the more they'll do the shit they do. That includes reading/linking/commenting on news stories that give them coverage. If it becomes more trouble than it's worth for news agencies to cover the WBC, then they'll stop doing it.

So stop feeding the fire, please.

I keep thinking of the song (Dirty Laundry by Don Henley) when I watch the media's coverage of this.  The WBC was almost certain to say something about this sad event, they have to if they want to keep the attention they hunger for.

I think a lot of the divisiveness between the parties has been fueled by the media in the last few years.

Jude

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 09, 2011, 01:12:11 AM
I'm a republican, a gun owner and totally tired of having folks throw up Palin as the 'typical Republican'. I'm an admittedly MODERATE republican, with a different view on specific issues from the party platform (Birth Control, Pro-Choice, and a few other points. I'm all for small governement, but I want some regulation of fire arms). Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk are NOT the typical republican, just the loudest ones.
This poll begs to differ:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx

You're not the typical Republican, so trying to use yourself as a yardstick for your ideology is going to get some inaccurate results.

I'm not saying I'm against gun ownership, I'm just saying, when we make a virtue of it, isn't that dangerous?

Silverfyre

Quote from: Trieste on January 09, 2011, 02:46:58 PM
*tears out hair*

The more attention you give those fuckers, the more they'll do the shit they do. That includes reading/linking/commenting on news stories that give them coverage. If it becomes more trouble than it's worth for news agencies to cover the WBC, then they'll stop doing it.

So stop feeding the fire, please.

I only linked it because I think people need to be aware of just how disgusting these individuals are, not to give them more attention.


DarklingAlice

#26
Quote from: Jude on January 09, 2011, 03:09:49 PM
I'm not saying I'm against gun ownership, I'm just saying, when we make a virtue of it, isn't that dangerous?

No. What becomes dangerous is when we make a zealotic fetish over it and as a result fail to only put guns in responsible, trained hands. The fact that you need less training, forethought, and mental faculty to own and operate a gun than you do to own and operate a motor vehicle is disturbing. However, making a virtue of ownership itself doesn't seem to be where the risk lies.

EDIT: Upon reflection I guess what I am saying is that we have made a virtue of the lack of responsibility involved in their ownership rather than the ownership itself.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Callie Del Noire

#27
Quote from: Jude on January 09, 2011, 03:09:49 PM
This poll begs to differ:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx

You're not the typical Republican, so trying to use yourself as a yardstick for your ideology is going to get some inaccurate results.

I'm not saying I'm against gun ownership, I'm just saying, when we make a virtue of it, isn't that dangerous?

Alright, but by the same extent don't assume we're all tools because we're on the other side of the party line please. Most folks might like Rush (and god forgive them, a small portion like Palin and Anne Coulter) but the folks running the party aren't always the 'typical' republican.
<snip>

Took the rest of my rant out of the thread.
</snip>

Back to the subject, I wish the media would give the investigators some space, watched another press conference where they tried to angle into information they don't need to put out in the public purview yet. Did he have help, was there other suspects, ect ect. Sheesh, do the reporters think these questions through or are they hoping for another officer to blow up at them in prime time like the cop in charge of the Beltway sniper case?

Possibly tanget thought to add to the discussion.

If the shooter IS mentally unstable would it be an assassination attempt or simply a very tragic spreed killing/stalking event? 

Oniya

Hinckley was adjudicated insane, and they still refer to it as the Reagan assassination attempt.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Oniya

Quote from: Silverfyre on January 09, 2011, 03:12:08 PM
I only linked it because I think people need to be aware of just how disgusting these individuals are, not to give them more attention.

That particular description of them is pretty well established.  I'm expecting that the Patriot Riders will once again sally forth.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Oniya on January 09, 2011, 04:49:00 PM
Hinckley was adjudicated insane, and they still refer to it as the Reagan assassination attempt.

Good point, and we know he was trying for the President. I just don't like anything that lets the media sensationalize this you know? It's like a feeding frenzy. Can't use any of the US news channels without them analyzing things ad neausuem.


Oniya

I think that calling it a conspiracy, and particularly a 'Tea Party conspiracy' is horrendously premature, since there hasn't been any word yet on the status of the 'other person' that early news reports suggested as being involved.  I'm not particularly fond of the TP, but so far there's been no link made between them and JLL.  He really shares more in common with the lone nutjobs like Charles Whitman than anyone operating as part of a wider reaching plan.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Will

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 09, 2011, 01:12:11 AM
I'm a republican, a gun owner and totally tired of having folks throw up Palin as the 'typical Republican'. I'm an admittedly MODERATE republican, with a different view on specific issues from the party platform (Birth Control, Pro-Choice, and a few other points. I'm all for small governement, but I want some regulation of fire arms). Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk are NOT the typical republican, just the loudest ones.

If they're the loudest ones, I can't understand blaming anyone for thinking they represent the party.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Will on January 09, 2011, 05:59:37 PM
If they're the loudest ones, I can't understand blaming anyone for thinking they represent the party.

Well when you're loud and rowdy, the media pays attention to you. I got a lot of democrat friends in the south who feel
ignored because they are rural farmers and average workers. A lot of the discontent I heard at my last school reunion was the democratic supporters I knew in high school felt that they were being ignored and taken for granted while the party chased special interests.

It's not something restricted to one side of the party line.

Oniya

Nutters tend to rise to the surface.  There are perfectly reasonable members of just about every group, but many of them stay unnoticed just because they try to avoid being associated with the unreasonable people in their group.  You hear all about the crazy anime fans that are so wrapped up in a given show that their entire lives are devoted to it, but you don't hear about the moderate fans that use their enjoyment of a given show as a springboard to actually learn about a foreign culture, or take up a new language.  It's the same sort of thing here.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Oniya on January 09, 2011, 06:32:24 PM
Nutters tend to rise to the surface.  There are perfectly reasonable members of just about every group, but many of them stay unnoticed just because they try to avoid being associated with the unreasonable people in their group.  You hear all about the crazy anime fans that are so wrapped up in a given show that their entire lives are devoted to it, but you don't hear about the moderate fans that use their enjoyment of a given show as a springboard to actually learn about a foreign culture, or take up a new language.  It's the same sort of thing here.

Well said, wish I was that well spoken (er..written)

Trieste

Indeed. How many moderate feminists do you know that readily identify themselves as feminists in mixed company?

Silverfyre

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 09, 2011, 06:28:15 PM
Well when you're loud and rowdy, the media pays attention to you. I got a lot of democrat friends in the south who feel
ignored because they are rural farmers and average workers. A lot of the discontent I heard at my last school reunion was the democratic supporters I knew in high school felt that they were being ignored and taken for granted while the party chased special interests.

It's not something restricted to one side of the party line.

Agreed.  Honestly, this is why I am a moderate.  Both parties have their nut jobs and outspoken idiots.  Both parties have their redeeming policies and members.  At the end of the day, this really boils down to too much anger and insanity that unfortunately cost several people their lives, including a 9 year old girl, and caused a great deal of pain and suffering.  I can only hope that some questions get answered and things get looked at.


Jude

#38
A study was done a few years back on experts and the predictions they made, particularly those in the political and economic realms.  For the purposes of the study a wide variety of experts were analyzed not just for the accuracy of their predictions but the tone of the expert.  They did a rigorous statistical analysis and found the following trends:

- The more confident experts were, the worst their predictive insights were.
- The best experts took their ability to make predictions with a grain of salt.
- Very few experts actually averaged at better than making a prediction of constancy (no change).  Most did worse.
- Experts featured prominently in the media tended to be those who were most confident, and by extrapolation, least accurate.

(source:  Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, published in 2005 after a 20 year study with 284 experts, and 82.361 predictions.)

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Silverfyre on January 09, 2011, 06:34:54 PM
Agreed.  Honestly, this is why I am a moderate.  Both parties have their nut jobs and outspoken idiots.  Both parties have their redeeming policies and members.  At the end of the day, this really boils down to too much anger and insanity that unfortunately cost several people their lives, including a 9 year old girl, and caused a great deal of pain and suffering.  I can only hope that some questions get answered and things get looked at.

Same here, I just hope the media gives the authorities the space they need to operate. We've already had one 'mis-cast' because they were crowding for that nugget of information that they could trump their commercial rivals on. The announcement that Congresswoman Giffords' death while she was in surgery won't be the last bogus call if they keep crowding folks. And I am really concerned this 'feeding frenzy' of the media might seriously screw up the investigation.

Will

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 09, 2011, 06:28:15 PM
Well when you're loud and rowdy, the media pays attention to you. I got a lot of democrat friends in the south who feel
ignored because they are rural farmers and average workers. A lot of the discontent I heard at my last school reunion was the democratic supporters I knew in high school felt that they were being ignored and taken for granted while the party chased special interests.

It's not something restricted to one side of the party line.

Exactly.  The party is chasing special interests.  Therefore, the party (either party) must be controlled and represented by the people parroting those special interests, no?  How can anyone think the party is represented by people that have no voice in it?
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Sandman02

I liked Callie's honest hope for a new time of compromise and reconciliation to begin, regardless of how gradual the process may be, We've seen that recently, with compromises on policies that left a bad taste in either party's mouth.

I think the thing that makes me most guarded in my optimism for this, though, is the fact that there are so many junior congressman of the Tea Party in office, who seem to have been elected on a platform of no compromise of any kind. I'm of the opinion that the tea partiers will not be pleasantly surprising us any time soon - of course, I don't speak with much authority on the topic. What do you guys think?

Star Safyre

I honestly think this has more to do with the state of mental health care in this country than (perceived or media inflated) political differences.  These are the actions of one very disturbed, incoherent individual.  The political views he espoused and ultimately murdered for are nonsensical, illogical, and very much grounded in his mental illness.  If proper treatment, up to and including commitment, had been a viable and easily accessible option, I believe this would have been averted.
My heaven is to be with him always.
|/| O/O's / Plots / tumblr / A/A's |/|
And I am a writer, writer of fictions
I am the heart that you call home
And I've written pages upon pages
Trying to rid you from my bones

Silverfyre

Quote from: Star Safyre on January 09, 2011, 07:10:34 PM
I honestly think this has more to do with the state of mental health care in this country than (perceived or media inflated) political differences.  These are the actions of one very disturbed, incoherent individual.  The political views he espoused and ultimately murdered for are nonsensical, illogical, and very much grounded in his mental illness.  If proper treatment, up to and including commitment, had been a viable and easily accessible option, I believe this would have been averted.

Yes and no.  The shooter in question is obviously mentally ill but his paranoia was probably fueled by the way the media and the two parties in the U.S. put forth their rather hateful agendas and messages.  Look at the last wave of political ads.  There was nothing positive at all in those, but rather vicious, provocative verbal attacks upon the other candidate's party and person.  I think both are to be blamed here, not just the state of mental health in the United States.


Will

It wasn't stated with certainty that he acted alone, either.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Oniya

I think that both political vitriol and the mental illness played a part in this, but I think that the critical cause - the 'but for' factor without which the crime wouldn't have occurred - is the mental illness.  I look at it this way: with no mental illness, a potential assassin is going to consider the possible consequences of their actions.  He or she may decide that it's 'worth it', but there is going to be a period of premeditation.  Also, a premeditated assassination is more likely to go for the target, and once the target is dropped, the assassin would consider the mission 'accomplished', instead of continuing to shoot.

With a mental illness in the mix, that premeditation may not occur at all, or may be distorted beyond any rationalizing.  Hinckley tried to kill Reagan because he thought it would make Jodie Foster fall in love with him.  JLL's motives could have been influenced by the political vitriol or by his own personal demons.  The vitriol didn't help matters, but I can't see it as the root cause.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zeitgeist

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/gergen.pointing.fingers/index.html?hpt=C1

I agree with most of what David Gergen says in this linked article. Nevertheless, the first paragraph strikes me as nonsensical.

QuoteUntil we have more definitive information about the shooter, pointing fingers at who might bear responsibility for the Tucson, Arizona, massacre only contributes to what we must end in America: a toxic political environment.

There is no question who bears responsibility for the massacre. It's the perpetrator himself. No one else. Period. It's not Sarah Palin's fault, nor Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh or any other person. Just like the people who flew the planes into the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon. It's no one else fault but the person or people who committed the crime. I don't for a minute buy into this baloney that so-called pundits who offer an opposing view some how inspire those unbalanced, and by that extension are somehow culpable. Think for just a nanosecond what that line of thinking will lead us to.

I am responsible for my own actions. No one else.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Will on January 09, 2011, 07:34:22 PM
It wasn't stated with certainty that he acted alone, either.

However without evidence that is baseless and useless speculation. Let's wait and see if the investigations turn up something.

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on January 09, 2011, 09:48:33 PM
I am responsible for my own actions. No one else.

And this is very clear cut...as long as you aren't mentally ill. Laying blame at that point becomes much trickier and is largely dependent on the nature of the mental illness.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Oniya

Quote from: DarklingAlice on January 09, 2011, 09:52:42 PM
However without evidence that is baseless and useless speculation. Let's wait and see if the investigations turn up something.

Apparently the 'person of interest' was nothing more than the driver of the taxi that he took to the event.  When they got there, JLL didn't have the right change, so the two of them went into the Safeway to get change, and then they parted ways.  There is still investigation going on into two groups called the American Renaissance, and the New Century Foundation, but so far it seems to be 'the way he talks sounds like these groups', rather than anything concrete.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

itsbeenfun2000

Let's just hope people will step back and think before they say anything about their political opponents. Not saying that had anything to do with it but at least it can't be suspected.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: itsbeenfun2000 on January 09, 2011, 11:24:38 PM
Let's just hope people will step back and think before they say anything about their political opponents. Not saying that had anything to do with it but at least it can't be suspected.

+1

(slaps down inner cynic)

Vekseid

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 09, 2011, 06:28:15 PM
Well when you're loud and rowdy, the media pays attention to you. I got a lot of democrat friends in the south who feel
ignored because they are rural farmers and average workers. A lot of the discontent I heard at my last school reunion was the democratic supporters I knew in high school felt that they were being ignored and taken for granted while the party chased special interests.

It's not something restricted to one side of the party line.

More conservatives openly getting behind - or with - David Frum would go a long way towards helping correct the situation.

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on January 09, 2011, 09:48:33 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/gergen.pointing.fingers/index.html?hpt=C1

I agree with most of what David Gergen says in this linked article. Nevertheless, the first paragraph strikes me as nonsensical.

There is no question who bears responsibility for the massacre.

It's the perpetrator himself.

Wrong.

Watch his videos. He is not capable of thinking logically or rationally.

He very likely has no capacity of having responsibility for his own actions.

This would have been impossible forty years ago. Forty years ago, this man would have been found, and placed into a mental asylum where he belonged.

It is the people who tore down that support network, and support networks like it, who own the blame. It is the people who seek to prevent those support networks from being built, who own the blame. It is those who spread lies, who own the blame. It is the people who mock such efforts.

Like calling them 'Nanny state'.

Who own the blame.


Quote
No one else. Period.

Wrong. Period.

The legal system even has a mechanism for recognizing this possibility.

Period.

Quote
It's not Sarah Palin's fault,

As a demagogue, Sarah Palin shares some of the blame.

Quote
nor Glenn Beck,

As a liar and a demagogue, Glenn Beck shares some of the blame. Perhaps most of it, given the nature of the videos.

Quote
or Rush Limbaugh

As a demagogue, Rush Limbaugh shares some of the blame.

Quote
or any other person.

Everyone who opposes programs that would make sure people like the assassin are off the streets shares some of the blame.

Quote
Just like the people who flew the planes into the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon.

Then why did we go after Al-Qaeda? No one who survived flew those planes.

And why was there an investigation - and action - into intelligence failures, since we should have been able to prevent that attack?

It's the brainwashing of the brainwashable that was responsible. It is the lack of good security policy that was responsible.

Something like 2% of the population is naturally immune to authoritarian leanings.

Roughly 10% of the population is exceedingly susceptible to authoritarianism.

Most of the people in this world have a natural inclination to follow. Fortunately, in modern society, we have laws, and people follow those laws.

There are those who insist on seeing to the breakdown of government and turning this country into 'every man for himself'.

If they get their wish, there will be a lot more of this.

Quote
It's no one else fault but the person or people who committed the crime.

Again, you are demonstrably wrong.

Quote
I don't for a minute buy into this baloney that so-called pundits who offer an opposing view some how inspire those unbalanced, and by that extension are somehow culpable.

Look up Radio Rwanda.

Eight hundred thousand people murdered by incisive rhetoric.

All it takes for that bloodshed to begin is a lack of respect for civil order.

Quote
Think for just a nanosecond what that line of thinking will lead us to.

Civilized, honest discourse, and avoiding the bloodshed that the anti-intellectualism that these demagogues preach so often leads to.

QuoteI am responsible for my own actions. No one else.

Your claims about yourself are irrelevant to this discussion.

If I wrote a computer program that did damage, who is responsible? Just the computer program?

Aeval

Hitler incited thousands of Germany's young to join him...The young of poorer nations are incited to take up arms for their country because they will be rewarded (not monetarily). Didn't Al Queda promise all those who died as suicide bombers that 70 vestal virgins awaited them when they died..and people say that mere 'words' have no power?????!!!! Those who are mentally ill by the very nature of their illness have difficulty differentiating between reality and the unreal. The power of suggestion becomes not suggestion but TRUTH which must be acted upon. How many deaths does it  take before public figures realize how their words affect others? How their covert 'suggestions' are interpreted as reqests for action by those in the population that do not have the best tools to decipher what is meant.

“Tomorrow may be hell, but today was a good writing day, and on the good writing days nothing else matters.”
― Neil Gaiman

Oniya

I do hope that when he is tried (assuming that he's found competent, which is likely to be a hurdle), that the jury realizes that 'not guilty by reason of insanity' does not mean that he goes out the front door.  This seems to be a common misconception, and the reality is that he would then go into a institution where he could get help - and most likely never get out, considering the severity of his issues.

I'm going to be interested to see how the guys at In Session cover this tomorrow.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vekseid

Insanity decrees usually refer people to psychiatric wards rather than prison. He won't be out free, for sure.

Insanity is also a different defense than being clearly mentally ill - it's a legal term, not a medical one, which is best summed up as 'not responsible for one's own actions' - that is, if he is ruled insane, the perpetrator is not responsible for the crime even though he is clearly unfit to function in society.

rick957

#55
The developments in Arizona trouble me deeply, as well, but (with all due respect, Vekseid,) there appear to be somewhat reckless statements being made here -- claims that certain acts are morally equivalent, when they really aren't. 

Saying that someone should be killed is not the same as doing the killing.  Harmful public speech has moral consequences and entails certain blame, but even incitement to murder does not entail identical blame as the act of murder itself.

If person #1 tells person #2 to murder person #3 ...

and if person #2 then murders person #3 ...

person #1 is still not responsible for murdering person #3; not in a legal sense or a moral sense. 

Person #1 is not responsible for the murder even if person #1 is a politician, religious leader, artist, musician, journalist, media personality, parent, best friend, or any other highly-influential figure.

Furthermore, person #1 is not responsible for the murder even if person #3 is physically or mentally incapable of being responsible for his or her own actions.

Only person #2 is responsible for murdering person #3.

As Zamdrist (I think) was saying, each person is responsible for his or her own actions. 

Person #1 is responsible for his or her actions, but his or her action in this case was only speech -- not murder. 

The speech caused harm, and the harm caused was the incitement of person #3 to commit murder.  But inciting someone else to commit murder is not the same as committing the murder yourself; not in a legal or moral sense.

Just thought that should be pointed out.

Oniya

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 12:31:52 AM
Insanity decrees usually refer people to psychiatric wards rather than prison. He won't be out free, for sure.

Insanity is also a different defense than being clearly mentally ill - it's a legal term, not a medical one, which is best summed up as 'not responsible for one's own actions' - that is, if he is ruled insane, the perpetrator is not responsible for the crime even though he is clearly unfit to function in society.

This is true, but one of the reasons that the insanity defense fails (for those curious as to the difference, most states have an insanity definition that requires that the defendant be unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions, or is unable to conform their behavior to the law) is the difficulty that jurors - John and Jane Average - have in declaring someone who clearly committed the action 'not guilty', even with the qualifier.  It took a retrial for Andrea Yates to be properly deemed legally insane.

Quote from: rick957 on January 10, 2011, 01:19:34 AM
The developments in Arizona trouble me deeply, as well, but (with all due respect, Vekseid,) there appear to be somewhat reckless statements being made here -- claims that certain acts are morally equivalent, when they really aren't. 

Saying that someone should be killed is not the same as doing the killing.  Harmful public speech has moral consequences and entails certain blame, but even incitement to murder does not entail identical blame as the act of murder itself.

If person #1 tells person #2 to murder person #3 ...

and if person #2 then murders person #3 ...

person #1 is still not responsible for murdering person #3; not in a legal sense or a moral sense. 

Ah - then why is it that when someone is either involved in a conspiracy to commit murder (where no money changes hands), or hires a hit man (essentially the same thing, only with money involved), they are also able to be convicted and sentenced for the murder? 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vekseid

#57
Quote from: rick957 on January 10, 2011, 01:19:34 AM
The developments in Arizona trouble me deeply, as well, but (with all due respect, Vekseid,) there appear to be somewhat reckless statements being made here -- claims that certain acts are morally equivalent, when they really aren't. 

Saying that someone should be killed is not the same as doing the killing.  Harmful public speech has moral consequences and entails certain blame, but even incitement to murder does not entail identical blame as the act of murder itself.

If person #1 tells person #2 to murder person #3 ...

It's not person #1 telling person #2 though.

It's person #1 telling a whole gaggle of people, of whom person #2 happens to be one.

That's why we expect people who speak to millions to act responsibly.

Quote
and if person #2 then murders person #3 ...

person #1 is still not responsible for murdering person #3; not in a legal sense or a moral sense. 

You are quite wrong. Both legally and morally.

Why do people claim Hitler killed six million jews? Did he, personally, even slay a single one?

We hold Hilter morally culpable for the behavior he engendered in others.

People who incite others to violence can in fact be legally held accountable for it. Even in personal situations, 'Fighting words' as a legal defense, for example. If you berate and belittle someone until they snap at you, you may in fact be held accountable for the resulting violence.

Quote
Person #1 is not responsible for the murder even if person #1 is a politician, religious leader, artist, musician, journalist, media personality, parent, best friend, or any other highly-influential figure.

Wrong in all cases.

Quote
Furthermore, person #1 is not responsible for the murder even if person #3 is physically or mentally incapable of being responsible for his or her own actions.

No, the potential for someone to be incapable of rational judgment is exactly why you are wrong from a legal and moral standpoint.

You are responsible for the behavior you draw out from others.

We call this behavior, on forums, trolling. We're quite familiar with it. See this one, for example. He enraged a lot of people.

Who is responsible for the rage? Themselves?

If someone refuses to engage in civil discourse, and does nothing but harass or incite, then they are, in fact, guilty of the behaviors they endeavor to cause.

This swings both ways, of course. When someone is positively inspiring, does the inspiree give no credit whatsoever to the one who inspired them?

Quote
Only person #2 is responsible for murdering person #3.

Wrong, as demonstrated.

Quote
As Zamdrist (I think) was saying, each person is responsible for his or her own actions. 

This country is suffering from a dreadful lack of a sense of responsibility. Arguments like yours and Zamdrist's have, at best, no merit whatsoever.

Quote
Person #1 is responsible for his or her actions, but his or her action in this case was only speech -- not murder. 

The speech caused harm, and the harm caused was the incitement of person #3 to commit murder.  But inciting someone else to commit murder is not the same as committing the murder yourself; not in a legal or moral sense.

Again, then why are the biggest murderers assigned legal and moral culpability for those they drove to murder?

Even when no authority is involved, such as Radio Rwanda's slaughter.

Quote
Just thought that should be pointed out.

And I think it deserves to be smacked down like the sociopathic bullshit that it is.

No one is an island. No one's ideas or decisions form in a vacuum. They are shaped by the people and conditions around them, as well as their own physical state. Things like this are why fraud is a crime. Things like this are why we have statutory rape laws. Things like this are why only doctors can give medical advice, and only lawyers can give legal advice.

Things like this are why the Rwandan genocide is attributed to Radio Rwanda.

Things like this are why incitement to violence is, in fact, illegal.

In short, if you hold a position such that you are in a position to instruct another, you have a responsibility for the quality and nature of that instruction.

This means that yes, you do have responsibility for your own words and statements.




Is the blood of every death on your hands? No. Of course not. There will of course be cases where incitement may occur where it cannot be reasonably be predicted.

This, however, was in fact predicted. By the victim herself, even.

rick957

Oniya and Vekseid:  You're both free to disagree with my points, and I appreciate the explanations of your positions.  I still disagree with certain things each of you said or suggested, and I'll be back to explain how and why when I have time to put together a detailed, thoughtful response.

Vekseid:  as to statements like this --

QuoteAnd I think it deserves to be smacked down like the sociopathic bullshit that it is.

Resorting to such language is both personally offensive and inappropriate in a civil public discussion, no matter how strongly you feel about these issues.  And frankly, the smugness and self-righteousness in your overall tone offends me.  I was not defending murder or immoral behavior of any kind, nor was I defending speech that incites others to immoral acts.  I was making a philosophical point about what kind of moral weight ought to be assigned to different kinds of behavior.

You come across as upset about the situation in Arizona.  Okay, that's understandable.  I am too.  But if you think everyone who disagrees with you about the moral/ethical/philosophical issues involved deserves to be lumped in with the murderers and lunatics and denounced from on high, well ... that's no way to behave, in my opinion, if you want to persuade others of the rightness of your positions, or if you want to simply participate in civil discussion or debate.

Vekseid

Normally I apologize in such instances when I cross a line, but let's examine the situation for a moment.

A nine year old girl was murdered.
A federal judge - appointed by George H.W. Bush, was murdered.
Four elderly people, were murdered.
A sitting congresswoman is likely to have permanent brain damage.

This sitting congresswoman:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs

Anyone who says that this event was not anticipated, is demonstrably lying.

If an event can be anticipated, measures can occasionally be taken to alleviate or prevent it. Avoiding those measures, actively preventing them, or worse, aggravating them carries moral culpability.

Sarah Palin did not remove her takebackthe20 dot com material until after the assassination attempt.

Rush Limbaugh publicly ridiculed calls to tone down the rhetoric.

Glenn Beck proudly says one thing and heavily implies another. And flip flops like crazy.

They could have, instead, pointed out the results of violence. This is the worst thing that could have happened to the right wing in America - a nine year old girl is dead.

Her face and her death are going to be a symbol for the result of right wing, libertarian, gun-nut hysteria for a long time.

Are they the only ones to blame? Certainly not.

We used to have a mechanism for catching and holding these people, preventing them from harming larger society. The breakdown of that mechanism is partly to blame as well. As is working to ensure that it doesn't get put back into place - but those same demagogues fight that.




Those same demagogues, in other nations, for other causes, under other guises - but using the same methods - are held as responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

The Rwanda genocides were instigated by invective radio personalities speaking and acting much as Glenn Beck does.

This isn't about 'strong feelings'.

This is about lines of behavior that lead to mass slaughter.

Demanding that I - or anyone - respect it, is only going to get the same respect I would give to any genocidal maniac.

It has no logical grounding.

It has no legal grounding.

It has no moral grounding.

It is reprehensible to absolve those who use invective, anti-intellectual or false speech of moral or legal culpability from the result.

Take a look at your very post. I am expected to hold some responsibility for what I say on this site. To take responsibility in one form or another when I am in the wrong, in a different manner than anyone else on this site, because I have the authority here. I get some perks, but my behavior is also expected to be more limited.

America's tolerance of demagoguery has a great deal to do with the sad state this nation is in.

It has a great deal to do with why people fear America is slipping into a fascist state.

And if we refuse to hold demagogues accountable for what they communicate to others, that fear is all the more realized.


Brandon

Quote from: Vekseid on January 09, 2011, 11:40:28 PM
More conservatives openly getting behind - or with - David Frum would go a long way towards helping correct the situation.

Wrong.

Watch his videos. He is not capable of thinking logically or rationally.

He very likely has no capacity of having responsibility for his own actions.

This would have been impossible forty years ago. Forty years ago, this man would have been found, and placed into a mental asylum where he belonged.

It is the people who tore down that support network, and support networks like it, who own the blame. It is the people who seek to prevent those support networks from being built, who own the blame. It is those who spread lies, who own the blame. It is the people who mock such efforts.

Like calling them 'Nanny state'.

Who own the blame.


Wrong. Period.

The legal system even has a mechanism for recognizing this possibility.

Period.

As a demagogue, Sarah Palin shares some of the blame.

As a liar and a demagogue, Glenn Beck shares some of the blame. Perhaps most of it, given the nature of the videos.

As a demagogue, Rush Limbaugh shares some of the blame.

Everyone who opposes programs that would make sure people like the assassin are off the streets shares some of the blame.

Then why did we go after Al-Qaeda? No one who survived flew those planes.

And why was there an investigation - and action - into intelligence failures, since we should have been able to prevent that attack?

It's the brainwashing of the brainwashable that was responsible. It is the lack of good security policy that was responsible.

Something like 2% of the population is naturally immune to authoritarian leanings.

Roughly 10% of the population is exceedingly susceptible to authoritarianism.

Most of the people in this world have a natural inclination to follow. Fortunately, in modern society, we have laws, and people follow those laws.

There are those who insist on seeing to the breakdown of government and turning this country into 'every man for himself'.

If they get their wish, there will be a lot more of this.

Again, you are demonstrably wrong.

Look up Radio Rwanda.

Eight hundred thousand people murdered by incisive rhetoric.

All it takes for that bloodshed to begin is a lack of respect for civil order.

Civilized, honest discourse, and avoiding the bloodshed that the anti-intellectualism that these demagogues preach so often leads to.

Your claims about yourself are irrelevant to this discussion.

If I wrote a computer program that did damage, who is responsible? Just the computer program?

Veksied I would like to see your sources on all of that. Information about the kid has been fragmented at best. After reading various news organizations since the event happened Ive found a large variety of information that contradicts other news organizations (not a big surprise in this day and age of spun news). As I understand his situation (as I said much of the info is contrary to other sources) JLL was largely mistrustful of the government, he was not democratic, republican, a tea party member of anything of the sort. If anything he despised any kind of party and party affiliation and genuinely believe that the government was trying to form some major world order in an attempt to control every aspect of all of humanity. That said, how can you come to the conclusion that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the usual suspects in your lists are at any fault? I have not seen 1 piece of evidence that says he watched or listend to anything affiliated with those people. Due to his mistrust of government it would have been impossible for anyone to be a demagogue to him.

So from my point of view it sounds like your demonizing those people, again. In the interest of fair representation for indivduals and organizations as well as the truth I ask that you post your sources or withdraw those comments as conjecture
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Vekseid

Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2011, 04:46:03 AM
Veksied I would like to see your sources on all of that.

Would be more complete if you asked each individual point for the source where one is needed. "All of that" is just asking for me to miss something.

* Insanity Defense
QuotePut simply, the insanity defense asserts that the criminal DEFENDANT  is not guilty by reason of insanity. The theory behind the defense is persons who are insane cannot have the intent required to perform a criminal act because they either do not know that act is wrong or cannot control their actions even when they understand the act is wrong. But this theory is controversial because insanity itself is difficult to define, and the circumstances in which insanity can be used to excuse criminal responsibility are difficult to define.

* Radio Rwanda and Genocide... I'd quote a bit but really, the entire thing, it's just sick.

* Deinstitutionalization and its deadly results.

* Authoritarianism - The pdf of the book is directly linked and you can read it for free. It gives a good deal of information about what authoritarianism is, how it works, and the various mental traits thereof. In particular, it describes how easy it is to get someone killed if you convince people that it is the correct course of action.

It focuses on 'right wing authoritarians' but I've found the authoritarian streaks in militant atheism, militant feminism, militant communism, etc (as has the author). Religion is not at fault on its own, but ideologies can be. It's important to focus on the data the study does provide.

Quote
Information about the kid has been fragmented at best.

You don't need to trust anyone's word on the guy's mental state.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

Look through his uploaded videos.

Even ignoring the blatant displays of schizophrenia (him talking about the bird on his shoulder...)

Note his inability to form a coherent syllogism - even though he makes many attempts at forming syllogisms. They are all horrifically ill-formed, even ignoring faulty premises.

He is not capable of rational thought.

Quote
After reading various news organizations since the event happened Ive found a large variety of information that contradicts other news organizations (not a big surprise in this day and age of spun news). As I understand his situation (as I said much of the info is contrary to other sources) JLL was largely mistrustful of the government, he was not democratic, republican, a tea party member of anything of the sort.

In the videos, the only other political belief he held was the creation of independent, gold-silver-material backed currencies. This is a libertarian viewpoint, but you would be correct in stating that libertarianism has nothing whatsoever to do with his craziness.

I only point out Glenn Beck because Glenn Beck has been rampantly promoting gold coinage. That's the only current link (and a tenuous one), unless he reveals more about his motives at trial.

More serious, however, is that the general accusation is valid.

This is not the first incident where people have died.

Quote
If anything he despised any kind of party and party affiliation and genuinely believe that the government was trying to form some major world order in an attempt to control every aspect of all of humanity. That said, how can you come to the conclusion that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the usual suspects in your lists are at any fault? I have not seen 1 piece of evidence that says he watched or listend to anything affiliated with those people. Due to his mistrust of government it would have been impossible for anyone to be a demagogue to him.

It would not matter in the slightest if he didn't. All it takes is one person he trusts to plant the wrong idea. It could have been someone Beck listened to. It could have been someone her opponent listened to. It could have been anyone else. It could have been any of thousands of nutjobs. All of them driving each other, a narrative driven by hate, lies, and intolerance.

All it takes is one person who is crazy enough to act on those words.

Quote
So from my point of view it sounds like your demonizing those people, again. In the interest of fair representation for indivduals and organizations as well as the truth I ask that you post your sources or withdraw those comments as conjecture

They deserve every bit of demonization they get.

EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Bill O'Reilly Suggests CIA Should Kidnap Pelosi And Reid, Waterboard Pelosi

Do you think that's funny?

Do you think that's appropriate?

They play on people's fear, desperation, and uncertainty. They demonize rational and civil discourse, attacking honest, well-meaning people and portraying them as villains.

Their vitriol and methods are responsible for the worst crimes in all of human history. Name one mass murder in the past century that was not driven by anti-intellectualism or demagoguery. Find me one.

Those are, of course, very broad sins. But it is very clear what sort of behavior we should be steering clear of. Glenn Beck has not been. Sarah Palin has not been.

We own our words.

rick957

I'm not going to respond line by line or point by point to everything that's been said, due to simple time constraints.  Also because I don't have any illusions about being as skilled with debate, or as generally knowledgable or as articulate, as lots of other people on this site, Vekseid included. 

One thing I am good at, though, is being careful with language, and deliberate in the things I say.  Vekseid, in your last post before my first post, you were careful to qualify many of your statements in the following way, though I failed to acknowledge this before (emphases are added in all these quotes by me):

QuoteAs a demagogue, Sarah Palin shares some of the blame. ... As a demagogue, Rush Limbaugh shares some of the blame. ... Everyone who opposes programs that would make sure people like the assassin are off the streets shares some of the blame.

This is another way of saying what I was trying to say in my post:

QuoteHarmful public speech ... entails certain blame, but ... does not entail identical blame as ... murder itself.

I was responding not to the more sensible and qualified statements above, which I essentially agree with, but to certain non-qualified, immoderate statements like these:

QuoteIt is the people who tore down that support network, and support networks like it, who own the blame. It is the people who seek to prevent those support networks from being built, who own the blame. It is those who spread lies, who own the blame. It is the people who mock such efforts.

Like calling them 'Nanny state'.

Who own the blame.

Those are the kinds of statements I was referring to as "somewhat reckless."  Here and in other places you seem to be suggesting that certain politicians -- perhaps Republicans, or Tea Party-aligned ones, or ones who supported cutbacks to publically-funded mental health institutions -- bear the same responsibility for the Arizona killings as the murderer himself. 

In my opinion, such a suggestion is both inflammatory and insupportable.  What you are doing there is lumping together law-abiding public servants with murderers, painting them all with the same brush.

Last time I personally ran across such unfortunate recklessness was in a Politics and Religion thread about the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, where someone posted this poorly-phrased remark:

QuoteAs Colin Powell pointed out in his autobiography, the US military (oddly enough, with its thoroughly conformist culture that is required of its participants) tends to be at the forefront when it comes to social change. Look at where Powell got to by the end of the 20th century. These things take time. The Christiano-theocratic-fascist movement will also need to take time to admit defeat.

The bold part was later snipped out and replaced with the following:

QuoteThese things take time. *snip*

Watch your words, and use them wisely. Thank you. ~Staff

Asked (by me) for some public explanation of this seemingly unilateral and anonymous act of censorship, staffperson Trieste gracefully replied with the following:

QuoteThere are more mature ways to express a point than resorting to namecalling, and that's all I'm going to say on the subject. If you have questions, PM them to staff please.

So it seems the labelling of Christians and/or DADT-policy supporters as "fascist" was crossing a line that merited censorship, at least in that case.

Here's the same person (sorry Trieste, it's nothing personal) referring in this thread to a group of law-abiding, peaceful protesters, specifically the Westborough Baptist bunch, who at least claim themselves to be Christians:

Quote*tears out hair*

The more attention you give those fuckers, the more they'll do the shit they do. That includes reading/linking/commenting on news stories that give them coverage. If it becomes more trouble than it's worth for news agencies to cover the WBC, then they'll stop doing it.

So stop feeding the fire, please.

Stop feeding the fire, indeed.

Starting with Vekseid's very first post in this thread, we've seen Republicans referred to repeatedly here as liars, demagogues, and fascists.  We've seen law-abiding Americans of different political persuasions equated with genocidal maniacs, perpetrators of "mass slaughter," held responsible for "the worst crimes in all of human history."

Brandon has a post above that aptly refers to this as "demonizing."  It seems to me that in a roundabout way, it's the same kind of hurtful scapegoating and extremism that inspires certain politicians on the Right to pepper their rhetoric with references to gunplay.

I wish I had a fraction of the learning and wisdom necessary to craft a convincing argument against such well-intentioned folly.  It galls me far more when it comes from those on the Left, or from Independents, because I agree far more frequently with the substance of their views, if not with all their approaches.  Bill Maher and Jon Stewart remind of nothing so much as backwoods Southerner Fundamentalist Baptists, and I'd like to slap sense into all of them. 

But as I said at the beginning of this post, I'm not all that well-educated or persuasive, so I'm going to finish with what is perhaps a cowardly move:  by linking to a text by someone a lot smarter than me, a famous person named Diderot, whose words express my inner sentiments far better than I ever could.  (In case you're wondering, no, I don't know jack about this guy -- barely even know his name -- and I found the text by serendipitous accident, though I really do feel that it captures what I wanted to say -- at least the parts I understood.)  If you read it, just mentally replace all the references to Christians and Christianity with whatever other religious, political, or social group you identify with most closely (assuming it isn't Christians, that is; then just read it).

For those like me who are usually too lazy to bother with links to long text pieces, I'll close with some excerpts that struck me as particularly relevant.  Thanks for reading, anyone who got this far.

Quote...

Education, persuasion, and prayer, these are the only legitimate means of spreading the faith.

Any means that provoke hate, indignation, and scorn are impious.

Any means that stir the passions and foster self-interest are impious.

...

Any means that tend to incite men to rebel, bring nations to arms, and drench the earth with blood are impious.

It is impious to seek to coerce conscience, the universal determinant of behavior. Conscience must be enlightened, not constrained.

Men who err in good faith are to be pitied, never punished.

Neither men of good faith nor men of bad faith should be harassed, but rather left for God's judgement.

If we cease relations with those we call impious, we will cease contact with those we call miserly, indecent, ambitious, irascible, or depraved. We will advise the same for others and three or four intolerant people will suffice to tear society apart.

If we can tear out one hair from those whose opinions differ from ours, we can take the whole head, as there is no limit to injustice. ...

He [Saint Paul] further wrote: do not treat as an enemy those who do not have the same opinions as you, but warn them as a brother. ...

...

There are circumstances in which we are equally persuaded of error as of truth. Only someone who has never pursued error in good faith can disagree with this.

If your truth outlaws me, my error, which I take to be the truth, will outlaw you.

...

[Here Diderot gives quotations from others.]

Salvianus: "These men are in error without knowing it. They are wrong according to us but not according to themselves. They consider themselves such good Catholics that they call us heretics. What they are to us, we are to them; they err, but in good faith. What will be their future lot? Only the great judge can know. He tolerates them in the meantime."

...

Oniya

Quote from: rick957 on January 10, 2011, 03:14:26 AM
Oniya and Vekseid:  You're both free to disagree with my points, and I appreciate the explanations of your positions.  I still disagree with certain things each of you said or suggested, and I'll be back to explain how and why when I have time to put together a detailed, thoughtful response.

Actually, I may be able to clarify a few things further.  I'm actually disagreeing with Veks a bit here as well and going strictly with the legal precedent.  Going with your generic persons #1, #2, and #3, there have been several cases where a person who had no direct involvement in the act of killing was deemed legally responsible.  In NC. v. James Sullivan, a man hired someone to pose as a flower delivery man and shoot his wife to avoid a divorce.  Maryland politician Ruthann Aron eventually pleaded 'no contest' to trying to hire a hit man to kill her husband and two other attorneys.  Charles Manson has been in jail since 1971 for the Tate/LaBianca murders, despite not being anywhere near the scene.

Where I disagree with Veks is that in all these cases, the person found guilty of inciting the murder (and at the risk of skirting Godwin's Law, I'll throw in Hitler and Radio Rwanda as well), had intent.  For all the vitriol slung far and wide during the recent political elections, I have trouble believing that any of the current demagogues had the intent that their words be taken as a call for violence.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vekseid

And I rather suspect that they do.

Glenn Beck Mocking Nancy Pelosi For Tearing Up!

Limbaugh mocked her too.

Quote from: rick957 on January 10, 2011, 06:53:23 AM
I'm not going to respond line by line or point by point to everything that's been said, due to simple time constraints.  Also because I don't have any illusions about being as skilled with debate, or as generally knowledgable or as articulate, as lots of other people on this site, Vekseid included. 

One thing I am good at, though, is being careful with language, and deliberate in the things I say.  Vekseid, in your last post before my first post, you were careful to qualify many of your statements in the following way, though I failed to acknowledge this before (emphases are added in all these quotes by me):

This is another way of saying what I was trying to say in my post:

I think, perhaps, I ought to point out, the six who died on Saturday are not the only ones dead. George Tiller is dead. Three police officers are dead.

And so on.

If this were an isolated incident, if this were the only case of violence or attempted violence in recent history, then obviously this discussion wouldn't even be happening. It would be some horror we wondered at the causes of.

It's just that, a young white girl is dead now, and an important person has suffered a grievous injury.

This mattered before. It matters no less now. The question is, how many more people are going to die before the blame is justly assigned to where it belongs.

It's very difficult to determine 'blame share' in these cases, and I don't think it's appropriate to simply dismiss Glenn Beck's vitriol as being less than murder.

Quote
I was responding not to the more sensible and qualified statements above, which I essentially agree with, but to certain non-qualified, immoderate statements like these:

Those are the kinds of statements I was referring to as "somewhat reckless."  Here and in other places you seem to be suggesting that certain politicians -- perhaps Republicans, or Tea Party-aligned ones, or ones who supported cutbacks to publically-funded mental health institutions -- bear the same responsibility for the Arizona killings as the murderer himself. 

Yes.

If someone is incapable of controlling or moderating their own actions, it is incumbent upon society as a whole to make sure, through one mechanism or another, that that person does not cause harm.

If someone impedes those activities, they share culpability - with each other, not the murderer - for the murder.

If someone actively takes advantage of their lapsed mental state by giving them ideas, they share the burden of responsibility - again, with each other, and not the murderer.

Maybe the murderer needs to be put down. That's irrelevant, however.

The issue is, there are millions of people with various mental illnesses, conditions, and situations that impair their judgment. If it's not one person, it's another.

Again, this was predicted. The specific name and identity of the murderer was not known - just the generic event itself. That someone would attempt an assassination.

Quote
In my opinion, such a suggestion is both inflammatory and insupportable.  What you are doing there is lumping together law-abiding public servants with murderers, painting them all with the same brush.

Most of them are not public servants. Most of them are pretty despicable as people, actually. Have you seen some of the stuff Bill O'Reilly has said about Nancy Pelosi?

And honestly, if right wingers were comfortable with my conclusions in this thread, there would be something seriously wrong with me.

This nation has a lot of soul searching to do. Whether it will happen now or after however many more tragedies is an open question.

Quote
Asked (by me) for some public explanation of this seemingly unilateral and anonymous act of censorship, staffperson Trieste gracefully replied with the following:

I believe I only attacked the argument itself, though when I said 'sociopathic bullshit' I meant Zamdrist's argument more than yours.

I still don't give your argument weight, because this is, pardon, fucking serious. And it needs to be taken, pardon, fucking seriously.

Quote
So it seems the labelling of Christians and/or DADT-policy supporters as "fascist" was crossing a line that merited censorship, at least in that case.

Unqualified statements with no supporting evidence should be.

I am quite happily and perfectly willing to defend my claim that much of the right wing in this country is a fascist movement.

This does not mean that Christians are. It does not mean that Republicans are.

It does mean that the leaders of the right wing in this country - such as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Fox - make use of fear and misinformation to distort the dialogue, which is the definition of demagoguery. Their discussion and allusions to violence in their rhetoric are a fundamental component of fascism - power by any means necessary. Their mockery of intellectuals and the educated - anti-intellectualism - is a vital component of fascism.

And it deserves to be called out for what it is.

Quote
Here's the same person (sorry Trieste, it's nothing personal) referring in this thread to a group of law-abiding, peaceful protesters, specifically the Westborough Baptist bunch, who at least claim themselves to be Christians:

She's referring to paying attention to the Phelps clan. They make their money by inciting people to attack them, but play their legal book very carefully.

So the best solution is to simply ignore them, or resort to anonymous violence.

Quote
Starting with Vekseid's very first post in this thread, we've seen Republicans referred to repeatedly here as liars, demagogues, and fascists.  We've seen law-abiding Americans of different political persuasions equated with genocidal maniacs, perpetrators of "mass slaughter," held responsible for "the worst crimes in all of human history."

Where did I accuse republicans in my first post?

I made very specific accusations, more specific than party affiliation. There are valid reasons for wanting to oppose social programs, or being fiscally conservative, etc. Or otherwise opposing the democrats.

My accusations are about a very select group of people, each of whom have a wide audience, who have abused the privileges that having such an audience has given them.

And people are dead.

Again, not just the six who died Saturday.

Quote
Brandon has a post above that aptly refers to this as "demonizing."  It seems to me that in a roundabout way, it's the same kind of hurtful scapegoating and extremism that inspires certain politicians on the Right to pepper their rhetoric with references to gunplay.

No, they resort to references to gunplay, 'exterminate all liberals', 'progressives should be rounded up', etc. Because it plays to the fearful and cowed. It's also a distinctly fascist action - stating that if legal means can't get them where they need to, violence can.

Quote
I wish I had a fraction of the learning and wisdom necessary to craft a convincing argument against such well-intentioned folly.  It galls me far more when it comes from those on the Left, or from Independents, because I agree far more frequently with the substance of their views, if not with all their approaches.  Bill Maher and Jon Stewart remind of nothing so much as backwoods Southerner Fundamentalist Baptists, and I'd like to slap sense into all of them. 

Bill Maher and Stewart?

The only major liberals that I know of who are using deceptive rhetoric are Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann. And none of them have even remotely begun to stoop to the level Glenn Beck has.

Quote
But as I said at the beginning of this post, I'm not all that well-educated or persuasive, so I'm going to finish with what is perhaps a cowardly move:  by linking to a text by someone a lot smarter than me, a famous person named Diderot, whose words express my inner sentiments far better than I ever could.  (In case you're wondering, no, I don't know jack about this guy -- barely even know his name -- and I found the text by serendipitous accident, though I really do feel that it captures what I wanted to say -- at least the parts I understood.)  If you read it, just mentally replace all the references to Christians and Christianity with whatever other religious, political, or social group you identify with most closely (assuming it isn't Christians, that is; then just read it).

For those like me who are usually too lazy to bother with links to long text pieces, I'll close with some excerpts that struck me as particularly relevant.  Thanks for reading, anyone who got this far.

Nothing cowardly about linking as long as you don't make a habit of letting them argue for you.

Diderot's words are extremely relevant when addressing strangers individually or in small groups.

98% of the population consists of well-meaning, good and decent people. The overwhelming majority of them will have some degree of authoritarian leaning - that is, they'll trust one authority perhaps a bit more than is logically appropriate. This can lead to drastic problems (plenty of examples with that one), but for the most part, it saves genuine time and effort - no human is capable of being a repository for all knowledge.

There are really only two ways to crack solid, incorrect authoritarian beliefs.

One is if they're in a crisis situation, to take advantage of them. This is often unpredictable, but it is fast.

The other is to become familiar with them, and fundamentally show them - not just tell, but show - that what they believe is fundamentally wrong. This is slow, difficult, and can take a lot of heartache, but it is actually rather successful.

Should I practice what I preach (with that) more? Possibly. I don't feel that taking that viewpoint means rolling over in every battle, or being too nice to call a spade a spade on each and every occasion.




Brandon

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 06:05:07 AM
Would be more complete if you asked each individual point for the source where one is needed. "All of that" is just asking for me to miss something.

I was specifically reffering to any evidence that showed an actual connection to your usual suspects list

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 06:05:07 AM
You don't need to trust anyone's word on the guy's mental state.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

Look through his uploaded videos.

Even ignoring the blatant displays of schizophrenia (him talking about the bird on his shoulder...)

Note his inability to form a coherent syllogism - even though he makes many attempts at forming syllogisms. They are all horrifically ill-formed, even ignoring faulty premises.

He is not capable of rational thought.

Clearly he suffers from several mental health issues. I have not yet earned my bachelors degree in Psycology but I agree Schizophrenia is one of the more likely mental illnesses he suffers from. I would also include depression, paranoia, and possibly bipolar disorder as well, but thats conjecture based around testimony from classmates and friends (or people claiming to be them). I would have to actually sit down and talk to him to be sure

Theres no doubt that he needs help and I hope he gets it but what I do find most interesting were some of the subjects he was supposably interested in: Namely Philosophy and logic

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 06:05:07 AM
In the videos, the only other political belief he held was the creation of independent, gold-silver-material backed currencies. This is a libertarian viewpoint, but you would be correct in stating that libertarianism has nothing whatsoever to do with his craziness.

I only point out Glenn Beck because Glenn Beck has been rampantly promoting gold coinage. That's the only current link (and a tenuous one), unless he reveals more about his motives at trial.

More serious, however, is that the general accusation is valid.

This is not the first incident where people have died.

I dont really see how you immediately (and logically) came up with GLenn Beck as the starting point. Historically, when economic troubles came up precious metals like gold and silver have always been worth more and considered more reliable then our standard currency. I remember learning that in high school when we went over the great depression, its fairly common knowledge

Dont get me wrong, it is possible (but I would consider it unlikely due to his paranoia) that Glenn Becks gold promotions helped him come to that conclusion but I think its stretching it to jump to him as a cause first

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 06:05:07 AM
It would not matter in the slightest if he didn't. All it takes is one person he trusts to plant the wrong idea. It could have been someone Beck listened to. It could have been someone her opponent listened to. It could have been anyone else. It could have been any of thousands of nutjobs. All of them driving each other, a narrative driven by hate, lies, and intolerance.

All it takes is one person who is crazy enough to act on those words.

I have to admit the cynic in me just wondered if from your point of view you believe they can do no right. Normally you are a rational minded person but its clear that rationale and logic arent being used here. There is no evidence I know of and none that you have posted to show any kind of connection (vague or otherwise) between JLL and Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and/or Glenn beck. However you seem to be very clear that you still want to hold them responsible for the tradgedy, at least in some small way

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 06:05:07 AM
They deserve every bit of demonization they get.

I have to cut you off here. "They deserve it" is a very slippery slope. Some of the worst atrocities in history were caused because "They deserved it". Frankly you're better then that.

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 06:05:07 AM
EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Bill O'Reilly Suggests CIA Should Kidnap Pelosi And Reid, Waterboard Pelosi

Do you think that's funny?

Do you think that's appropriate?

They play on people's fear, desperation, and uncertainty. They demonize rational and civil discourse, attacking honest, well-meaning people and portraying them as villains.

Their vitriol and methods are responsible for the worst crimes in all of human history. Name one mass murder in the past century that was not driven by anti-intellectualism or demagoguery. Find me one.

Those are, of course, very broad sins. But it is very clear what sort of behavior we should be steering clear of. Glenn Beck has not been. Sarah Palin has not been.

We own our words.

If you dont mind I would like to quote Mel Brookes here when he was explaining the difference between "dark comedy" and regular comedy

Quote"Tradgedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into a sewer and die"

What he meant here is when you look at things from the outside they tend to more funny especially when they are more serious(i.e. when you see one of your friends do something and hurt themselves). When you are part of the situation it seems far less funny because theres an attachment rather then detachment.

I hope that makes sense so far

Now to be completely honest, yes I did chuckle because I have no attachment to either Reid or Pelosi in any tangental sense (read: Detachment). While you will have a hard time seeing it as funny because your attachment (your hatred of torture and belief that its use should be treason) is an all important issue to you. Our perspectives are different and thus so are our reactions.

Whether one finds it funny or not its clear that it was meant as a joke (even you believe that). Was it appropriate? Well yes for the context of the conversation I believe it was. The reason I believe it was was because the point of the discussion was getting "the nuts" out of the white house, the whole kidnap and dont hurt them or waterboard them "well except maybe pelosi" was symbolic of getting them out of office.
Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Zeitgeist

On Brandon's point about dark comedy; I think some people point to it as vitriol when it conveniently fits their narrative, and other times brush it off as just comedy when it doesn't. Either it's wrong 99.99% of the time, regardless of the person issuing it, or it is not. These people, O'Reilly, Palin, Beck, etc. are not leaders with lawful responsibilities. Comparing them to say Hitler and how he incited people to commit genocide is wrong headed in my opinion.

mystictiger

Coming into this thread a little late.

Firstly, having worked on the appeal in the so-called Media Case at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, this is nothing compared to what was going on there.

Secondly, one thing I don't understand is how people can still advocate gun ownership. As far as I'm aware there has never been an example where a lawfully held gun has stopped a massacre, a shooting, or an attack.

Thirdly, diagnosis by remote is dangerous an absurd. This is why the specialists actually go and visit patients, rather than trying to do it over the phone. Hell, in this country, diagnosis-by-phone gets you struck off for gross medical misconduct.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Oniya

Quote from: mystictiger on January 10, 2011, 08:30:32 AM

Secondly, one thing I don't understand is how people can still advocate gun ownership. As far as I'm aware there has never been an example where a lawfully held gun has stopped a massacre, a shooting, or an attack.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/26400594/detail.html  A woman in Baltimore successfully drove off a home-invader by shooting at him.  He also fired at her, but missed.  It isn't clear if her bullets killed him or if he killed himself.

This was one of several news stories that came up when I googled 'Intruder shot by homeowner'. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Vekseid

Off the debate, it seems the guy posted on abovetopsecret.com as 'Erad3'

Some more threads on display for his mental state.

Questioning Time
Space Travel is Impossibul
Mars Rovers Faked
Infinite Source of Currency!

There's also a suggestion that he was involved in a white supremacist group called American Renaissance (amren dot com), but I haven't found any real evidence of that yet.

This news article has more details. Doesn't seem to be anything in the way of serious political leaning outside of 'conspiracy nutcase'.

Oniya

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 09:07:51 AM
There's also a suggestion that he was involved in a white supremacist group called American Renaissance (amren dot com), but I haven't found any real evidence of that yet.

This news article has more details. Doesn't seem to be anything in the way of serious political leaning outside of 'conspiracy nutcase'.

Mentioned that here, and I agree.  It seems to be more 'he sounds like one of these guys' rather than 'we found him posting all over their message boards'.  Apparently he's appearing in court in Phoenix today to be officially charged, and his public defender is the same one that represented Ted Kaczynski, Zacharias Moussaoui, and Susan Smith.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

HockeyGod

I believe that the rhetoric in the polity has become a bit overzealous. The left (me) demonizes the right. The right sees the left as "targets". As we've shown, this type of rhetoric appears to be one of the factors for what's happening. Being a scientist at heart I obviously can't link a cause and effect relationship between Palin's rhetoric and actions of others, but I can't help think that there is a correlation.

I do agree that people need to be held accountable for their actions, but without the ability to incontrovertibly connect Beck/Limbaugh/Palin/other rhetoric to actions, it will be unlikely. What we're experiencing is both a new and old phenomenon. Old in that this type of rhetoric is historical in our nation's founding. Whether it's anti-Catholic, anti-suffragists, anti-desegregationists, anti-progressive...it's always been there and just as strong (recall images of lynchings, brutality, etc.). What's new is the medium and the speed at which we receive information. It seems there is some desensitization as we are bombarded with images from around the world. Do those images make us savage or were we savage all along?

I grieve for Congresswoman Giffords and her supporters that were affected by this tragedy.

This just all 'round sux.

rick957

Vekseid -- again, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and detail of your comments, and it's evident to me that you're far better informed than I about many of the things you're talking about.  I suppose if I had comparable knowledge on the same topics, I might agree with more of what you say.  Based on what little I know, I still respectfully disagree with several of your statements.  It's too bad, because I would guess that you and I also have strong agreements about many things.

I'm eager to move on and leave further discussion to others, but your last post contained a few things that I feel a need to remark upon first.

I'm afraid you made one statement that, once again, offended me personally.  This:

QuoteI still don't give your argument weight, because this is, pardon, fucking serious. And it needs to be taken, pardon, fucking seriously.

It doesn't offend me that you don't give my argument weight, or that you decided to use an expletive here.  What offends me about this statement is its obvious implication that I'm being less than serious in my comments on these issues.  If that's what you meant, well, that's a presumptuous, inappropriate, and offensive thing to suggest.  I may lack your level of education or knowledge, but I'm confident that I approach these topics with at least as much seriousness as you or most others do.  If that's not what you meant to imply, well, please say so.

QuoteShe's referring to paying attention to the Phelps clan. They make their money by inciting people to attack them, but play their legal book very carefully.

So the best solution is to simply ignore them, or resort to anonymous violence.

Here, it sounds like you might be advocating the use of anonymous violence against certain non-violent public protesters.  I assume that's not what you meant, but I don't know you well enough to say that for certain, so I'd appreciate clarification.  Personally I have no affection for the "Phelps clan" but do not advocate violence against them either; if you do, I'd like to hear you talk about the justifications.

QuoteIf someone is incapable of controlling or moderating their own actions, it is incumbent upon society as a whole to make sure, through one mechanism or another, that that person does not cause harm.

If someone impedes those activities, they share culpability - with each other, not the murderer - for the murder.

If someone actively takes advantage of their lapsed mental state by giving them ideas, they share the burden of responsibility - again, with each other, and not the murderer.

Maybe the murderer needs to be put down. That's irrelevant, however.

The issue is, there are millions of people with various mental illnesses, conditions, and situations that impair their judgment. If it's not one person, it's another.

(Emphasis added.)  Here, it sounds like you might be advocating the euthanization of certain people with mental illnesses.  Granted, you move on quickly from that point, but the point was still made.  Again, I assume that's not at all what you really meant, but I don't know for certain, so I'd appreciate clarification.

Finally, and least pleasantly, this statement has implications that I'm nearly certain you could not possibly have intended:

QuoteIf this were an isolated incident, if this were the only case of violence or attempted violence in recent history, then obviously this discussion wouldn't even be happening. It would be some horror we wondered at the causes of.

It's just that, a young white girl is dead now, and an important person has suffered a grievous injury.

This mattered before. It matters no less now. The question is, how many more people are going to die before the blame is justly assigned to where it belongs.

(Emphasis added.)  I don't believe I'm being knee-jerk politically correct or over-sensitive about this.  By making such a statement in a public forum and leaving that remark without further explanation, you've left open the possibility that you were making a racist suggestion -- specifically, saying that the girl's race/skin color made her death somehow more horrific or more tragic.  I don't know you personally, and neither do many who will read that statement, so please say something to make such a misinterpretation impossible.  Thanks.

kylie

#73
Quote from: ZamOn Brandon's point about dark comedy; I think some people point to it as vitriol when it conveniently fits their narrative, and other times brush it off as just comedy when it doesn't. Either it's wrong 99.99% of the time, regardless of the person issuing it, or it is not. These people, O'Reilly, Palin, Beck, etc. are not leaders with lawful responsibilities. Comparing them to say Hitler and how he incited people to commit genocide is wrong headed in my opinion.
I don't watch Fox or Beck or O'Reilly -- except when under the pressing need to use a food court right now and darn it, there they are again.  I disdain to watch them because I don't believe they are functioning as detached commentators nor good entertainers per se.  It's true that they share a certain "kick the bastards out" refrain which you could often enough find in Bill Maher during the W. Bush years.  However,I find Maher engaging not only because I agree with him generally speaking, but because his style of rhetoric appeals to me as one that encourages people to think about if they are going to agree (and sometimes I just don't agree that it's funny, or even correct). 

         Beck and O'Reilly tend more to shout and fast-talk as if they were on a firebrand pulpit and will brook no whispers from the peanut gallery whatsoever.  Their atmospherics, bluster and all, are posed as oh so serious in tone.  That plays well to a political wing where people are more often seeking security and closure at the expense of free association of issues and creative reframing of problems.  ( I don't think that part is really news if you look at say, conservative platforms and ethnographic reports on sex and gender -- but here's one aging abstract: http://ips.sagepub.com/content/11/4/461.abstract )   I really feel O'Reilly and Beck are well into the atmospherics of fear, intimidation, anger and obfuscation -- unless maybe, one is so into "macho" that nothing less blustering will even warrant a hearing. 

         It's easy to say, well of course I would find someone funny if they feed into my prior leanings and find the others scary.  However, there is research indicating that people actually judge the intent of comedy differently depending on political beliefs.  LeMarre at al (2009) found that although they may laugh, conservatives tend to assume that Colbert is "only pretending" to joke when he presents claims that they prefer to agree with.  Colbert's position is presumably more ambiguous than that of the right-wing "news entertainment" crowd above (that's a term that media researchers have used for them)...  Still -- We might better study whether even if say Palin were joking with her crosshairs, viewers might both claim to "know" that and still be prone to eat up the claims as if they were all serious arguments.
     

Noelle

You don't need a guy like this to have Glenn Beck's face tattooed on his ass to start seeing where he would start drawing on these ideas. You don't need him to cite a bibliography with the Tea Party or Palin or whoever specficially listed as a source to see that the insane tangents he goes on have quite a bit in common with common rhetoric in media that is readily accessible to millions of people. Even if these people weren't his direct sources of inspiration to go on some insane shooting spree like this, you can still examine their rhetoric and the choices they make when using their words and condemn it for what it is and what it has the potential to do. Bringing guns to a political rally is horrifying -- since when have we needed objects to rally around rather than words and ideas? Why can't we appeal to the public with intelligence rather than coming together because we all own something that shoots bullets and looks cool? I'm not electing someone based on whether or not they own a gun, I'm electing them on their ideas. I can't wait for the next super-liberal meeting where everyone drives their hybrid car and just sits around revving their engines and saving the planet. I wonder what the likelihood it is that something like that eventually turns into a deadly spree of some nutjob running down conservatives in their Prius until they're taken down after a high-speed chase. (Okay, I admit, I laughed at the idea of this, but don't get me wrong, this issue of a man gunning people down is decidedly not funny.)

If you're waiting on direct evidence of a correlation between them all before you're willing to speak out against their obvious crude and often violent political speech, you've already set up a straw man, Brandon. You're probably not going to get it. This man probably doesn't have tapes of Glenn Beck or Limbaugh or the like as masturbatory material under his bed. But ideas are very rarely brand-new and you know as well as I do that this man had access to the media that likely only fueled his opinion. It would be very ignorant of current media trend to say that Tea Bagger nutjobs haven't taken over our nation's attention and that conservative rhetoric has become more prominent (especially because A) a lot of liberals are total wimps, and B) MSNBC is still the saner camp when you compare their slant to Fox News'). While I don't agree with holding them responsible on the same level as a murderer because there isn't any way to get direct evidence in a case like this, it is well past time to demand for a saner, more intelligent level of dialogue in the political arena, and those people tend to be the worst offenders hands down. If you can't agree that people with power and influence and a nation-wide platform have a responsibility for the things they say, then I guess I'm at a loss.

Oniya

Quote from: rick957 on January 10, 2011, 09:33:24 AM
(Emphasis added.)  I don't believe I'm being knee-jerk politically correct or over-sensitive about this.  By making such a statement in a public forum and leaving that remark without further explanation, you've left open the possibility that you were making a racist suggestion -- specifically, saying that the girl's race/skin color made her death somehow more horrific or more tragic.  I don't know you personally, and neither do many who will read that statement, so please say something to make such a misinterpretation impossible.  Thanks.

Sadly, there is a documented bias in the media towards both of those groups - the 'young white girl' and the 'powerful person'.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome There are missing persons cases involving young non-Caucasians (male and female) that don't get nearly as much coverage as, say, Caylee Anthony.  It's not that it's more horrific or tragic.  If anything, it's more tragic that cases involving non-Caucasian victims are so under-reported.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Parlabane

Another weird thing that Loughner was connected to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist

The site they refer to (http://dwmlc.com/) is deeply weird - I've seen some weird internet sites in my time, but this one looks like ti comes from an entirely different planet.

Callie Del Noire

Neither side has a claim of purity of cause in this.  Both the right and left are given to black book tactics, verbal hyperbole and demonizing the other side. The media adds to it, by choosing the more divisive and loud elements on both sides. That makes for good viewing, or at least ratings.

We, the viewing public, are as culpable as the broadcasters, the pundits and the rest of them. We empower all of them by tolerating these actions from our elected officials, the media personalities and such. Time for everyone to take a step back, and THINK before we speak.

I think we can do better than elected officials who hold press conferences to publicly berate the other side of the party line for not going along with her, or a media personality who creates new names for folks he disagrees with. Time to consider who we support with our votes or viewing time.


Zakharra

 I believe there was a book published during the second election of G.W. Bush that detailed how to assassinate the President. It's critics pointed out that it was a possibly inflammatory book, and the supporters defended it through the Free Speech amendment. If someone had tried to assassinate the President, by some reasoning, the authors could and should be held culpable.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Zakharra on January 10, 2011, 12:15:31 PM
I believe there was a book published during the second election of G.W. Bush that detailed how to assassinate the President. It's critics pointed out that it was a possibly inflammatory book, and the supporters defended it through the Free Speech amendment. If someone had tried to assassinate the President, by some reasoning, the authors could and should be held culpable.

It's the same logic some Florida DA is using against the idiot who wrote the pedophilia book that WAS on Amazon isn't it? I'm not sure about the methodology and legal precedent of it but there are valid arguments on both pro and con on the topic.

Vekseid

Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2011, 08:08:40 AM
I dont really see how you immediately (and logically) came up with GLenn Beck as the starting point. Historically, when economic troubles came up precious metals like gold and silver have always been worth more and considered more reliable then our standard currency. I remember learning that in high school when we went over the great depression, its fairly common knowledge

Dont get me wrong, it is possible (but I would consider it unlikely due to his paranoia) that Glenn Becks gold promotions helped him come to that conclusion but I think its stretching it to jump to him as a cause first

We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November.

Quote
I have to admit the cynic in me just wondered if from your point of view you believe they can do no right. Normally you are a rational minded person but its clear that rationale and logic arent being used here. There is no evidence I know of and none that you have posted to show any kind of connection (vague or otherwise) between JLL and Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and/or Glenn beck. However you seem to be very clear that you still want to hold them responsible for the tradgedy, at least in some small way

Because there are deaths that are more linked to Glenn Beck (the three police officers above). It was only a matter of time before some nutjob actually managed to kill someone in a manner that got significant media attention.

Quote
I have to cut you off here. "They deserve it" is a very slippery slope. Some of the worst atrocities in history were caused because "They deserved it". Frankly you're better then that.

If you can find me a serious redeeming feature of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, I will gladly concede the point.

A serious redeeming feature would be something along the lines of
1) Consistently promoting and supporting a well-recognized and appreciated charity.
2) Consistent calls to avoid violence before Saturday.
3) A consistent history of admitting when they were in the wrong.

...something along those lines. Something that speaks to a greater depth of character than fearmongering.

Quote
If you dont mind I would like to quote Mel Brookes here when he was explaining the difference between "dark comedy" and regular comedy

What he meant here is when you look at things from the outside they tend to more funny especially when they are more serious(i.e. when you see one of your friends do something and hurt themselves). When you are part of the situation it seems far less funny because theres an attachment rather then detachment.

I hope that makes sense so far

Now to be completely honest, yes I did chuckle because I have no attachment to either Reid or Pelosi in any tangental sense (read: Detachment). While you will have a hard time seeing it as funny because your attachment (your hatred of torture and belief that its use should be treason) is an all important issue to you. Our perspectives are different and thus so are our reactions.

Whether one finds it funny or not its clear that it was meant as a joke (even you believe that). Was it appropriate? Well yes for the context of the conversation I believe it was. The reason I believe it was was because the point of the discussion was getting "the nuts" out of the white house, the whole kidnap and dont hurt them or waterboard them "well except maybe pelosi" was symbolic of getting them out of office.

Beck Jokes About "Put[ting] Poison" In Nancy Pelosi's Wine

"By the way I put poison in your-"

I was actually looking for the clip about O'Reilly saying Pelosi could be found bobbing up and down in a river. The vitriol against Pelosi in particular has been horrific.

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on January 10, 2011, 08:21:09 AM
On Brandon's point about dark comedy; I think some people point to it as vitriol when it conveniently fits their narrative, and other times brush it off as just comedy when it doesn't. Either it's wrong 99.99% of the time, regardless of the person issuing it, or it is not. These people, O'Reilly, Palin, Beck, etc. are not leaders with lawful responsibilities. Comparing them to say Hitler and how he incited people to commit genocide is wrong headed in my opinion.

How was Hitler a man with lawful responsibilities while in prison writing Mein Kampf? To say nothing of the way Glenn Beck talks about progressives right now in the free.

There are people who respect and listen to what they say, and as such they have responsibilities for that. Even if they're big on pretending not to by quitting their job halfway through.

Quote from: rick957 on January 10, 2011, 09:33:24 AM
It doesn't offend me that you don't give my argument weight, or that you decided to use an expletive here.  What offends me about this statement is its obvious implication that I'm being less than serious in my comments on these issues.  If that's what you meant, well, that's a presumptuous, inappropriate, and offensive thing to suggest.  I may lack your level of education or knowledge, but I'm confident that I approach these topics with at least as much seriousness as you or most others do.  If that's not what you meant to imply, well, please say so.

Having someone spread lies and hatred so freely, to so many, is a problem. People end up believing the lies. This removes people from, as one conservative think tank put it, 'reality based thinking'.

In the long run, these people will be disadvantaged compared to those who are able to make more apt judgments about their environment, Glenn Beck's popularity will collapse, and history will look more frankly at what caused what in this period.

Yet in the mean time, more people like Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, Scott Roeder, etc. are all out there, waiting for their crazy to reach the right point.

Quote
Here, it sounds like you might be advocating the use of anonymous violence against certain non-violent public protesters.  I assume that's not what you meant, but I don't know you well enough to say that for certain, so I'd appreciate clarification.  Personally I have no affection for the "Phelps clan" but do not advocate violence against them either; if you do, I'd like to hear you talk about the justifications.

WBC was recently the victim of car vandalism. No one in the entire town would take their money to get their vehicle fixed, and no one was giving any clues about the perpetrator. It was a reference to recent news.

Quote
(Emphasis added.)  Here, it sounds like you might be advocating the euthanization of certain people with mental illnesses.  Granted, you move on quickly from that point, but the point was still made.  Again, I assume that's not at all what you really meant, but I don't know for certain, so I'd appreciate clarification.

It's a question that belongs in a different topic, but as you might be aware, the later a mental illness is treated, in many cases, the harder it is to treat - to the point where it's an open question, given their mental state, if forcing them to live is really the humane option.

Quote
(Emphasis added.)  I don't believe I'm being knee-jerk politically correct or over-sensitive about this.  By making such a statement in a public forum and leaving that remark without further explanation, you've left open the possibility that you were making a racist suggestion -- specifically, saying that the girl's race/skin color made her death somehow more horrific or more tragic.  I don't know you personally, and neither do many who will read that statement, so please say something to make such a misinterpretation impossible.  Thanks.

Oniya got this already.

Other people have been murdered already. I've said this repeatedly. Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, Scott Roeder - all brushed under the carpet. The media circus is only occurring because of this time, it wasn't police or abortionists in the firefight. It has no bearing on my own racism or lack thereof.

Noelle

The thing about free speech is that it doesn't cover things that incite violence. Usually, I am willing to defend WBC, however annoying they are, because they never actually explicitly call for violence towards others, but I think their latest release definitely crosses that line -- I can't and wouldn't defend anyone who says "MORE SHOOTINGS PLEASE" because I think it is inciting and can have a very dangerous effect, especially given anyone who would follow and take the WBC seriously is probably already prone to some mental disturbance.

"Instruction manuals" of the sort really skirt the line. The Anarchist Cookbook, for one, details how to make different kinds of explosives and the like, which can promote urban terrorism and the like, but doesn't encourage attacks on any group in particular, to my knowledge. Even I have trouble defining where I would defend the author and where I think it should be removed -- I think it's tricky, and it's definitely easier to err on the side of taking away rights to free speech than it is to defend. I don't think there is an easy answer.

Vekseid

Quote from: Parlabane on January 10, 2011, 12:01:33 PM
Another weird thing that Loughner was connected to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist

The site they refer to (http://dwmlc.com/) is deeply weird - I've seen some weird internet sites in my time, but this one looks like ti comes from an entirely different planet.

It just seems to be speculation at this point, drummed up by a similarity in viewpoint. It could be valid but all that's certain right now is what he's written on ATS and posted on Youtube.

Quote from: Zakharra on January 10, 2011, 12:15:31 PM
I believe there was a book published during the second election of G.W. Bush that detailed how to assassinate the President. It's critics pointed out that it was a possibly inflammatory book, and the supporters defended it through the Free Speech amendment. If someone had tried to assassinate the President, by some reasoning, the authors could and should be held culpable.

It would depend on if it was inflammatory rather than a dry treatise on security threats posted to a public audience. The latter gets discussed all the time in all sorts of venues, for very legitimate reasons, including publicly.

Oniya

This just in:  Giffords is still in a medically induced coma, but the swelling seems to have stabilized.  The doctors say that in an injury like this, at this stage, 'no change' is a good thing (because it's early enough that it hasn't reached the healing stage).  Swelling can apparently take up to 5 days to top out, so the longer that remains stable, the better.  She was still responding to basic commands, and communicating via hand-squeezing before the coma was induced, which is also a good sign.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Remiel

Wow, it's obvious that emotions are riding high in this thread.

I have to agree with Zamdrist and rick957 here. To assign blame for Loughner's heinous act to anybody but Loughner himself (and any potential collaborator) is treading on very dangerous ethical and philosophical ground, with particularly profound implications for the freedom of speech that we hold so dear in this country.  I think we can all agree that the freedom of speech isn't absolute, and that we should indeed be held responsible for what we say.  As we recently learned, writing a book on pedophilia, even if it cannot be proved that the author committed the act itself, is a legal offense.  But to basically accuse pundits like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh as complicit in the murder, however, strikes me as extreme.

Vekseid, I was particularly surprised at your assertion comparing Palin to Hitler:

QuoteYou are quite wrong. Both legally and morally.

Why do people claim Hitler killed six million jews? Did he, personally, even slay a single one?

We hold Hilter morally culpable for the behavior he engendered in others.

People who incite others to violence can in fact be legally held accountable for it. Even in personal situations, 'Fighting words' as a legal defense, for example. If you berate and belittle someone until they snap at you, you may in fact be held accountable for the resulting violence.

Godwin's Law not withstanding, this is an obvious logical fallacy.  Sarah Palin is not Adolf Hitler.  No, Hitler may not have personally executed a single Jew, but he did order their extermination through his subordinate, Henrich Himmler.  Sarah Palin, to the best of my knowledge, has not advocated the murder of anyone.  Adolf Hitler was the supreme ruler of a fascist regime; Sarah Palin was only the governor of Alaska, and now is not even that anymore.  Hitler explicitly called for the extermination of the Jews in Mein Kampf; while the graphic of the crosshairs on Palin's website may have been in extremely poor taste, I find it very difficult to believe her intent was to have Giffords murdered.

Quote"I hate violence," Palin told Fox News' Glenn Beck in an e-mail, which Beck relayed on his radio program Monday morning. "I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this."

To use an equally absurd analogy, would we accuse Jody Foster of being complicit in the assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan?

There are many good subjects for discussion here, such as gun control, and mental illness as a mitigating factor in violent crimes, but to accuse right wing-pundits of contributing to the massacre is as ridiculous as accusing Marilyn Manson of abetting the 1999 Columbine school shootings.

Remiel

Also, I would just like to point out that there is some hypocrisy here, as George W. Bush certainly enjoyed his share of death threats from liberal activists during his tenure, and similarly tasteless comments such as this one by a Nobel prize winner. 

Partisan vitriol is nothing new to either side; the only difference is that the right has access to a greater audience through megamedia outlets such as Fox.

Jude

There's a difference between blame, responsibility, and their legal counterparts.  I'm not an expert on the law, so I can't rightly say when someone's speech crosses the line, but if you think prominent conservative and liberal voices haven't been contributing to the extreme acts of violence we've seen, I'd say you're delusional.

The level of intensity is certainly partly responsible, but I think one thing that a lot of people are missing out on is the exact logic employed by the shooter.  He clearly demonstrates the kind of conspiratorial thinking that is widespread in conservative media today.  Now, the right doesn't have a monopoly on this, there's plenty of insane conspiracies that the left buys into (9/11 truthers for example), but it's certainly more prevalent when it comes to the right.  Taking prominent figures mentioned in the thread and discussing them one by one...

- Glenn Beck created a conspiracy known as "crime inc" which presupposes that the current administration is involved in illegal, radical activity.  He's constantly taking a conspiratorial tone as he discusses Progressives, the Federal Reserve, and the media.  Couple that with his constant warnings of "big stuff is coming and it's dangerous," and it's surprising that his listeners aren't strapped C4 to their chest and charging the White House at this point.

- Sarah Palin loves to talk about government as if it has aims and desires in and of itself.  This anthropomorphizing of an institution is conspiratorial at its very root.  This is probably the most mainstream of all conservative paranoia as well.

- Rush Limbaugh has a gift for making up conspiracies unlike any other.  Around the time that the BP spill happened he implied that the government was involved and it was a manufactured disaster intended to gin up support for leftist environmentalist causes.

There are a number of prevalent viewpoints which have taken hold in the mainstream conservative movement which I did not even list above.  Damn near every conservative commentator out there is convinced that Global Warming is some sort of conspiracy/hoax perpetrated by elitist scientists for some unknown reason (which by the way is getting more and more ridiculous, funny how no media outlets covered the fact that the impartial investigations in the wake of the East Anglia controversy actually ended up verifying the integrity of the work done there).  The right is absolutely obsessed with imagining elaborate schemes which are attempting to subvert American traditions and sovereignty.

I don't point all of this out to shame conservatives however, I have no interest in the partisan wars as I'm an independent myself who does not adhere to ideology as an end to itself.  Conservatives have a lot of important, relevant things to say about the way our country is governed.  Furthermore, liberals are every bit as guilty of employing the same logic I'm condemning here, just less so at current for some reason.  The problem is the pervasiveness of that logic as political drift continues, the gap widens, and the internet is used to spread mass misinformation.

The mainstream media needs to get more in the business of dissolving myths and conspiracies, and less in the business of giving a platform to the nuts who perpetrate them.  However, the media is only feeding Americans what they wish to eat, the underlying blame lies with the populace.  Critical thinking is practically dead in mainstream society at this point.

rick957

#87
I'm stopping in just to bow out of this thread now, at least as a participant.  I wanted to express personal thanks to all of you who shared your perspectives so far.  I strongly hope that others here will continue to articulate their views on these topics in a civil way.  This thread contains numerous statements that I find deeply disturbing, surprising, and uncharacteristic of this community -- unrepresentative of its best qualities, or so I thought -- and still think, as a matter of fact.  >:(  :-) 

I've expressed my positions already, as best I could.  If you agree, or if you disagree, please take a moment to share your perspective, so that I and others can benefit from it.  Thanks.

Remiel

#88
Jude, that's why I love sites such as factcheck.org.  They've always done such a wonderful job of calling out both sides on their B.S.   But you're right.  Let's not forget that the primary objective of all "big" media is, ultimately, ratings (and the "bias" of any newspaper is, ultimately, to sell more newspapers).  I have absolutely no doubt that a story about an Obama scandal will draw just as much play in the MSM as a GOP scandal.  Why? Because it draws attention, meaning more viewers, meaning more advertising revenue.

Edit: And then there's always  Snopes.

Noelle

Unfortunately, Remiel, that requires an extra step that most people don't want to take. You have to first be skeptical of the facts presented to you before you think to bother checking Snopes or FactCheck, and when the average person is watching the news, they probably aren't actively cross-checking the claims the network makes. It's unfortunate that networks don't hold themselves to a higher standard of broadcasting.

Jude

Recently there was a study wherein they showed people a newspaper clipping that claimed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.  They polled the amount of people that believed it at that point.  Then they showed them a clipping of that newspaper that was a printed retraction, saying that the previous article was incorrect and weapons were not found.  Here's the crazy part:  Republicans were more certain that weapons of mass destruction were found after the retraction.  This isn't a statement on Republicans so much as the general public (in order to establish Republicans in particular you'd have to do more studies, and the opinion in the research community is divided on whether Liberals are equally as self-deluded), people believe what they want to and ignore what they don't.  The fault is with us, though it is in vogue to blame the media.

Brandon

I want you to understand that its difficult for me to discuss this because to me these people are virtually unknowns. The only one of them I have actually met and talked to was Sarah Palin and even that was just a 20 minute conversation between her speeches as she was running for VP. I like her as a person but not a political figure, IMO shes to headstrong and lacks the ability to consider compromise when it really counts. Without a doubt she has deep seated political beliefs which are central to her personality but I have a hard time picturing her as a fearmongerer and even more difficulty picturing her as a lier (as odd as that sounds for a politician)

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 12:36:33 PM
We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November.

<.<

>.>

That makes no sense at all. We were talking about his political belief (pretty much the only one he had) of creating precious metal backed currencies. You mentioned Glenn Beck promoting gold.

Then I mentioned historical trends where precious metals served as a reliable buffer in times of economic trouble and how it was well fairly common knowledge

Now its "We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November." That doesnt fit anywhere in the coversation

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 12:36:33 PM
Because there are deaths that are more linked to Glenn Beck (the three police officers above). It was only a matter of time before some nutjob actually managed to kill someone in a manner that got significant media attention.

Again, you dont seem to be using logic here. There is no evidence of JLL having any connection with any of those people yet (or at least none that Ive seen). Based on interviews taken from people that claim to know him I think it is also unlikely any will come out. You cant pin this on someone without evidence. It would be like if I consistantly talked about trimming the local black bear population, then someone goes out and puts down black bears, so people blame me claiming I incited poaching without any proof that the other person knew, met, or had ever even talked to me. That kind of thing might have been rampant in the days of the American revolution, civil war, or wild west but today it just sounds absurd and not in the funny way

To be fair, if you can prove that these people are really inciting violence then I urge you to contact your local authorities.

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 12:36:33 PM
If you can find me a serious redeeming feature of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, I will gladly concede the point.

A serious redeeming feature would be something along the lines of
1) Consistently promoting and supporting a well-recognized and appreciated charity.
2) Consistent calls to avoid violence before Saturday.
3) A consistent history of admitting when they were in the wrong.

...something along those lines. Something that speaks to a greater depth of character than fearmongering.

The problem with the idea of redemption is it seems so utterly arbitrary. What constitutes a well recognized and appreciated charity? What constitutes a history of admitting they were wrong? Wrong about what?

However even though it seems arbitrary Ill try and give one, you can explain to me why or why it doesnt fit. Awhile back Glenn beck did that big rally shortly before John Stewarts. Didnt he raise a huge sum of money for some charity for wounded/killed soldiers and/or their families?

If that isnt enough why? Are we taking the old testament biblical style of monotery value where a beggar who gives a single coin out of 2 is a saint and the merchant prince who owns half the land gives 100 coins (a very small amount of his fortune) and is seen as a greedy bastard?

Quote from: Vekseid on January 10, 2011, 12:36:33 PM
Beck Jokes About "Put[ting] Poison" In Nancy Pelosi's Wine

"By the way I put poison in your-"

I was actually looking for the clip about O'Reilly saying Pelosi could be found bobbing up and down in a river. The vitriol against Pelosi in particular has been horrific.

Im not sure what Im supposed to say here as that clip was just there. Am I supposed to explain the deeper concepts of humor and detachment again? Am I supposed to talk about why I do or dont find that appropriate or funny? I just dont understand the purpose of posting that clip with no context in the actual show or context in what you want from me.

Brandon: What makes him tick? - My on's and off's - My open games thread - My Away Thread
Limits: I do not, under any circumstances play out scenes involving M/M, non-con, or toilet play

Callie Del Noire

I have watched Palin and Beck as much as I can. Which was not much I'll admit. Palin is a strong willed, opinionated person. I don't think she's a fearmonger, I do think she wants to be in the Oval Office anyway she can get. I doubt there is not much she won't say or do to spin things in her favor. I am sure she'll try to get the nomination in 2012, and part of me sincerely hopes her role in this event damages her chances. There are much better leaders out there and as much as I hate to say it, the Republican party needs a Dewey more than another Bush on the ticket. A moderate who, like President Obama, is wiling to talk and build a consensus.

We've gotten too divisive over the last decade or so. I will say this, as much as I dislike some of the President's policies and plans, I respect him and if it came down to him or Sarah Palin, I would vote for him.  While not moderate in his policies he's willing to talk and work with rivals within and outside his party. Palin, on the other hand, will be the most rigid President we've had in decades if ever.

Glen Beck on the other hand, strikes me as someone with major issues. He strikes me as a bit like I was before councelling and medication. He's all over the map and starts to rant. He gets flushed, hyper and runs on. A lot like I did, but to a greater degree, when I was on my hyper phase when I started rapid cycling. Bipolar, untreated, sucks big time by the way. Not saying that Beck is, but he strikes me as someone who is their 'up phase' as I called it.

He rants, raves and I really don't think he considers what he says when he is saying it and later when he has time his ego won't let him back up. Too much rest on his reputation for him to admit he's wrong.

Like I said before, everyone has flaws. Right now though, Ego in the media and political arena keeps folks from admitting to mistakes. The media feeds on image and the ego feeds on that image, a viscous circle that aggravates the situation at hand.

Oniya

Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2011, 08:54:04 PM
We were talking about his political belief (pretty much the only one he had) of creating precious metal backed currencies. You mentioned Glenn Beck promoting gold.

Then I mentioned historical trends where precious metals served as a reliable buffer in times of economic trouble and how it was well fairly common knowledge

Now its "We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November." That doesnt fit anywhere in the coversation

With the strange leaps of (il)logic in JLL's videos, there's currently no telling if anything even related to his beliefs or to any demagogue's ranting made him buy the gun.  It could have been that he was essentially kicked out of college, when they insisted that he bring in a note from a mental health specialist saying that he was not a danger to himself or others.  It could have been a brain tumor, like Charles Whitman.  It could have been the six-foot invisible white rabbit standing in the corner (although Harvey always struck me as rather peaceable).

Or, it could indeed have been inspired by a graphic of a set of crosshairs, a casual comment about how America needs to 'reload' instead of retreating, or a long-winded spew about returning to the gold standard. 

Hopefully, this will come out in court, but if he's far enough gone that he's not competent to stand trial, or if he enters a plea agreement, the American public may very well not find out at all.  He may have to be sent off to a mental institution for treatment until he is competent (which could be never), or he may be confined to prison or an institution as part of a guilty plea.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

kylie

          What galls me about some of the defenses of Beck, O'Reilly and the like is a really sweeping pattern of asserting that the problem lies with individuals as if they had no context in a society.  Sadly, it boils down to a pretty consistent tune across so many issues -- not only physical violence, but symbolic violence, humiliation of people who don't have an inheritance to fight back with, and gross exploitation.

          When the political right in America wishes to tear down social programs and neglect infrastructure...
          ..... To turn a huge budget surplus into a massive deficit ...
          ....  To give untold billions in tax cuts to the upper few (even around a recession), the few who generally tend to hoard it ...
          ....  Or to say their leading commentators had nothing whatsoever to do with violence when they talk about violence specifically, frequently
          and in an earnest tone of fear-mongering...

      Then it's all a matter of individual sanity or personal responsibility of the man on the scene and nothing else.  No one is connected to anyone or anything in this rhetoric.  The basic story goes:  Individual people either rise above all situations as heroes, or disappear into squalor or suicide quietly and save all the "moral" leaders the trouble.  Or sometimes, they just randomly and "insanely" snap.  Oh look at that, how pitiful.  What an "unusual" case.  How un-American and uncivil.  Surely leadership and social organization had nothing to do with it.  This person came out of a vacuum and just "lost it." 

       The story goes:  Only people who make "bad life choices" ever end up on welfare --  The person with violent tendencies simply "failed to control himself," never mind the correctional system put thousands of him on the streets during the last 40 years --  Targets of violence are random as lightning.  They have nothing to do with media models of who is moral and who is not, and how very cold and angry speakers sound about it.  If a military base or a business tower is hit by "people who hate freedom," then it's time to mobilize the whole country in anger and storm in with attempts to colonize and drill baby drill "reform" a whole society elsewhere.  But if a guy on Main Street USA shoots an official, then it's no one's fault except the person who actually pulled the trigger.  Maybe not even his.  After all, it's "normal" for people to be a little crazy in the face of "Communism" and "government takeovers by Indonesian Muslims" is it not? 

       This is not to say that an assassination of say, W. Bush would not have been met with a few nods of "finally someone woke up."  Allthough, I happen to think a war over doctored intelligence and crass treatment of the poor is rather more worthy of vitriol than an attempt to provide broader health care.  The point remains that there is a jarring shift here by a faction who otherwise lean more toward enforcing flag pins and generally masculinist "family values" (rarely practical ones -- see divorce rate in Texas) to demands for solely personal accountability and "individual" redemption or damnation, bootstrap economics, and a free pool of semiautomatic weapons just to make it all more dramatic. 

     

Noelle

I think some are missing the point.

The point isn't to say Palin/Beck/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/insert-right-wing-pundit-here is directly responsible in that you can trace his actions back to one exact quote of theirs that explains everything. I even think pointing to Sarah Palin's graphic with the crosshairs as THE THING that set this dude off is silly.

The point is responsibility. The point is, a culmination of all of these voices on top of the fearmongering and non-facts already allowed to populate the airwaves is the kind of stuff that draws these crazies out of the woodwork. You don't have to believe that Glenn Beck directly made this man go on a shooting spree to be able to discern that Glenn Beck spouts a lot of really insane, whackjob shit that is grounded in little to no fact whatsoever and has the power to drum up some of this kind of behavior to some degree. It is absolutely irrelevant if you think his antics are a joke. You're probably not a sociopath or someone with severe mental illness or someone who is prone to following fringe conspiratorial thinking like his. Congratulations. But some people are.

Serephino

This saddens me, but doesn't surprise me.  The way things were going, it was bound to happen.  I mean, this past election was the worst I've ever seen.  Granted, I'm not that old, so there may have been times when it was worse, but I was seriously considering saying fuck it and moving to Canada.

Ever since Bush Jr, the Republican party has gotten out of control.  I'm not going to claim that Democrats are innocent, but the Conservative side seems to have the most nuts.  Every single Republican add I saw claimed that the Democrat opponent wanted to do things that were against good ol' fashioned American values.  Palin kept referring to 'real Americans'.  I'm sorry, but just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I'm not an American. 

I'm fairly certain it was Palin who first portrayed President Obama as a Muslim, which we Americans have been taught to fear.  I still remember the rally where McCain had to correct some lady when she said she didn't feel like she could trust Obama because of him being Muslim. 

A lot of the claims made during campaigns were just fucking ridiculous.  Naturally, it would draw the attention of the insane.  In my experience, the people who swallow this drivel spouted by these nuts without question are either nuts themselves, very ignorant, or very gullible.

Obviously this guy must have heard something somewhere that made sense to him.  You don't have to follow these people to hear their messages.  Last year during campaigns it was all over the news.  There were tons of ads on TV from local candidates.  It was 99% hateful garbage; yes, even from the Democrats.  I'm just glad I don't have a listed number so I didn't have to deal with robo-calls.

Are these people responsible for this tragedy?  In my opinion, yes, to a point.  No, they didn't intend for this to happen, but they vocalized whatever crap came to their minds with no regard to consequences.  If I yelled fire in a crowded theater and people were trampled to death I would be in trouble.             


Vekseid

Quote from: Remiel on January 10, 2011, 01:51:08 PM
Vekseid, I was particularly surprised at your assertion comparing Palin to Hitler:

It should be surprising, since I didn't.

The point was, we assign blame to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Temujin, etc. for acts that they themselves did not commit.

Quote
Godwin's Law not withstanding, this is an obvious logical fallacy.  Sarah Palin is not Adolf Hitler.

Good to know, since I never said she was. I accused Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox, and so on, of being fascists. That is not the same claim.

Quote
No, Hitler may not have personally executed a single Jew, but he did order their extermination through his subordinate, Henrich Himmler.

How is a perceived command from an authority someone respects not an order? That doesn't take political power. We hold religious and business leaders responsible for their abuses. And yes, political hacks as well.

Quote
Sarah Palin, to the best of my knowledge, has not advocated the murder of anyone.  Adolf Hitler was the supreme ruler of a fascist regime; Sarah Palin was only the governor of Alaska, and now is not even that anymore.  Hitler explicitly called for the extermination of the Jews in Mein Kampf; while the graphic of the crosshairs on Palin's website may have been in extremely poor taste, I find it very difficult to believe her intent was to have Giffords murdered.

1) There's plenty of people calling for progressives, liberals, and jews to be rounded up and murdered at the moment. How convenient of them to wipe their hands of it and pretend it doesn't exist.
2) Again, for the umpteenth time, these are not the only ones who are dead. These are just the ones who have been noticed.

Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2011, 08:54:04 PM
Now its "We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November." That doesnt fit anywhere in the coversation

I think we're addressing different concepts, it's not terribly relevant.

Quote
Again, you dont seem to be using logic here. There is no evidence of JLL having any connection with any of those people yet (or at least none that Ive seen). Based on interviews taken from people that claim to know him I think it is also unlikely any will come out. You cant pin this on someone without evidence. It would be like if I consistantly talked about trimming the local black bear population, then someone goes out and puts down black bears, so people blame me claiming I incited poaching without any proof that the other person knew, met, or had ever even talked to me. That kind of thing might have been rampant in the days of the American revolution, civil war, or wild west but today it just sounds absurd and not in the funny way

And again, see my point above - these aren't the only dead.

Fundamentally, we have a responsibility for what we say, and people are getting killed because of the rhetoric.

Fundamentally, we have a responsibility for the policies we promote. And people are getting killed because people who don't know jack shit about what they are talking about are spreading lies as facts.

Sound, well-implemented policies would certainly have prevented this massacre.

Quote
To be fair, if you can prove that these people are really inciting violence then I urge you to contact your local authorities.

The problem with the idea of redemption is it seems so utterly arbitrary. What constitutes a well recognized and appreciated charity? What constitutes a history of admitting they were wrong? Wrong about what?

How have they made the world better?

For all the power they supposedly have, how have they made it better? They have a solid grip on a fifth of this country's population. Obama doesn't really even have that - he blew that chance.

This goes a bit back to my point about this country not really having a leader. We have a serious deficit of inspiration, in general. It's not just the right wing.

Quote
However even though it seems arbitrary Ill try and give one, you can explain to me why or why it doesnt fit. Awhile back Glenn beck did that big rally shortly before John Stewarts. Didnt he raise a huge sum of money for some charity for wounded/killed soldiers and/or their families?

You mean his call for donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? That's kinda low, really.

He apparently donated his speaking fee at that rally to the Operations Warrior Fund. I don't know how much that was, however, compared the millions he earns in salaries.

Quote
If that isnt enough why? Are we taking the old testament biblical style of monotery value where a beggar who gives a single coin out of 2 is a saint and the merchant prince who owns half the land gives 100 coins (a very small amount of his fortune) and is seen as a greedy bastard?

Doesn't need to donate anything if he inspires people to do something genuinely good.

Quote
Im not sure what Im supposed to say here as that clip was just there. Am I supposed to explain the deeper concepts of humor and detachment again? Am I supposed to talk about why I do or dont find that appropriate or funny? I just dont understand the purpose of posting that clip with no context in the actual show or context in what you want from me.

I find it childish, personally.

But maybe that's just a 'difference in opinion'. Doesn't mean it's one I respect.

Zakharra

QuoteIt should be surprising, since I didn't.

The point was, we assign blame to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Temujin, etc. for acts that they themselves did not commit.

Those men were also leaders of nations that actively killed those they found undesirable and to get/keep power.

Quote
Good to know, since I never said she was. I accused Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox, and so on, of being fascists. That is not the same claim.

Hitler was a fascist. It's a point a lot of people will see if you compare people to him.

Quote
How is a perceived command from an authority someone respects not an order? That doesn't take political power. We hold religious and business leaders responsible for their abuses. And yes, political hacks as well.



1) There's plenty of people calling for progressives, liberals, and jews to be rounded up and murdered at the moment. How convenient of them to wipe their hands of it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Can you provide text that says they are saying that? The people you name have enough speeches and radio shows broadcast that IF they did say that, it would be easy too.  If they are actually saying that, provided it's not being taken out of context and spun like hell (something both sides do very well), then there is suitible reasosn to say they are calling for the killing of people.

A perceived command isn't neccessarily an actual command if the person does what they 'think' their leaders want. Those people will use that to justify their actions and are rightly called crackpots (terrorists are a decent example of that)

Oniya

Listening to the news now:  Giffords is now breathing on her own, still able to respond to simple commands.  Loughner appeared to be lucid during his federal arraignment (charges regarding the 5 victims with federal ties - state charges are likely to be congruent), responding to questions, including whether he realized that his actions could result in the death penalty.  He is not talking to authorities, but his parents are.  The other wounded victims have all been taken off the critical list - a couple have been discharged, some still have surgery scheduled.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

rick957

#100
Oh hell, I know I said I was done with this thread, but now I'm back.  Sorry, deal with it.  :)

There are only a relative handful of people on this site whom I think of as forming the core of the Elliquiy community.  Even though I've been active on the site for about a year, I don't think of myself as an integral member of the community; I've dealt with only a tiny percentage of the members.  The few whom I think of as integral to the community are the staffpeople -- gods/goddesses/genies and satyrs/sirens/sidhes, and presumably Vekseid -- and the mentors.  I lump all those people together simply because (unlike me) they've all put time and effort into either building, growing, or maintaining the site and community.

Vekseid has a special status on this site; whether he likes it or not, he's the single member whom everyone thinks of as being most responsible for Elliquiy's existence and maintenance.  At least that's my impression, and of course, his efforts on behalf of the site are appreciated.  However, because he's tied so closely to the community, his opinions and behavior reflect more strongly on Elliquiy than other people's opinions and behavior, at least in my mind, and in the minds of others here, I think.

As I explained earlier in this thread, Vekseid has made numerous remarks here that I consider careless, insupportible, and inflammatory.  He has also said a couple specific things, and has taken an overall tone, that I find personally offensive.  When I pointed out those things, he neither apologized, nor withdrew or reconsidered any of his statements.

So far, only a small handful of people have said anything to challenge any of Vekseid's statements.  None of those who have spoken out have been staffpeople or mentors. 

The silence of the rest of the community suggests tacit approval and agreement with Vekseid's opinions and behavior. 

I understand not all of you out there have seen this thread or read much of it closely.  I understand there's a lot of you and you have lots of other things to do.  All I'm saying is, this thread has seriously changed my impression of this entire community, and not for the better.  More importantly, I think it will do the same for at least a few of those who read the things that were said here and see the responses in this thread so far. 

I hope a few more will speak up, if only so that I can better gauge how closely Vekseid's views characterize those of the rest of the community.  Seriously, even if you agree with the things he has said and the way he has said them, if you would just please stop in and say so, I would personally appreciate it.  Maybe you can say something that would help me to reevaluate my conclusions about his positions, if not his behavior.

Thanks.

P.S.  Several of those who have commented in this thread have been talking about other issues related to the overall topic and haven't said a whole lot in agreement or disagreement with his points, especially the most controversial ones.  This also suggests tacit approval, general agreement with him, particularly because he launched the thread with a post expressing his views.  If you don't approve of anything he's said, please say so.

Jude

#101
I'd say that the inanity that we allow in discourse is more responsible for this than the overall tone.  Political discussion in this country has more to do with sloganism and emotion than dispassionate examination of the complicated cause-effect relationships in our society.  [From looking into the matter]  It seems to me that people on the whole are fundamentally ill informed and have no interest in learning anything that might invalidate their ideologically motivated points of view.  In America confidence is sexy, and what you see here is the dark side of that:  being so confident in your views which have no rational basis in reality that you're willing to kill for them.  I completely disagree that this is a phenomenon that is unique to the right, it's simply more prevalent there as the Christian Right, which seems to almost entirely control the party these days, is especially deluded.

I would respond to your concerns Rick with:  I don't agree with the things Vekseid has said and I have found them to be lacking in civility -- which is why I circumventing any direct dialogue there.  My silence isn't tacit approval as much as avoidance of butting heads with the management on an issue he's very passionate about, partially out of the interest of self-preservation (though that sounds overly dire, I don't think he's going to kill me or ban me or anything, I just doesn't seem like a wise thing to do).

EDIT:  I think some of it stems from the fact as well that arguing with him is a daunting task because of the reverence other posters have for him and the wealth of information that he has at his disposal.  I always feel like I'm flooded with claims to analyze whenever I have a discussion with him, to the point that it's difficult to really form criticism given the overwhelming amount of evidence he offers (even if I find that the quality of any particular piece isn't very compelling).  I'm not sure if this stems from a lack of education on my part or what.

Neroon

I'm locking this.

Vekseid is a human being and has a right to his opinion.  He also has to follow the site rules and generally does so to a higher standard than any other member.  Vekseid and the staff are not above the rules and it is right that this is the case.  However, Vekseid has a right to the same protection under the rules as everyone else.

Rick, your post was simply out of order.  You are taking an interpersonal issue between you and Vekseid and are now asking others to join you in attacking him.  That is victimisation and goes against the procedures for dealing with such matters laid out here.

If you have an issue with this, then you can bring it to me directly by PM.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy