House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

What does your qualm with their political speech have to do with this event?

Such speech connects anti-government feelings with violent imagery and a call to action--it implants an association between the government and taking violent action.

That's going far beyond voicing disagreement about policies.

The shooter in the recent tragedy had strong anti-government feelings--he posted them on YouTube--the vitriolic political discourse might have helped to motivate him to take violent action, even if his issues were different. He bought the gun in November, when elections were held and the anti-government rhetoric really heated up.

Giffords was likely the only federal officer holder he had access to. Her district was "targeted" in Palin's ad.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

From what little we know, it sounds like he was primarily emotionally disturbed, and may have had something personal against Giffords stemming from a previous interaction with her.

I agree. I'd go so far as to say it might not have even been against her, he could have just been an obsessed nut who fixated on the highest-profile person who ever gave him any attention. Didn't he keep a letter from her in a safe?

This guy seems crazy enough that I really agree that the crazy itself is the most obvious thing to blame, if anything, right now.

0 Replies

@firefly,

possibly he was left handed and never graduated high school and yet he was sold a gun?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

The opinion you call "shitty" merely says that folks who make claims about what politics is responsible for this do so without any evidence to support it. Your indictment of it is no difference: it's baseless and without any evidence to contradict its central claim.

I think you criticize it merely because it criticizes your position, but I'm open to hearing arguments against it with greater intellectual substance than merely calling it poop.

The problem with his piece is that his criticisms of those on 'the left' aren't compelling. He states that:

Quote:

Soon after the news broke, the internet lit up with accusations, even before we knew anything at all about the man who pulled the trigger. Much of the early commentary, especially from the left, blamed the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. for employing a rhetoric of militarism and creating a climate of hate.

He doesn't say who it is on 'the left' and he doesn't point out that their criticisms are, in fact, correct; independent of whether or not this guy had any political orientation at all, the right-wing has indeed been doing exactly what Gergen writes here. And the criticisms that the Left points out are valid whether or not they were causative in this case. Promoting a culture of violence leads to increased violence, period.

Quote:

I've not seen any evidence at all that this nut was even motivated by the right-wing, and even if he were I think blaming who a madman takes inspiration from is inherently problematic. I think the comparisons to those who want to criticize Muslims for their madmen (who take inspiration from their religion) are valid. Here the lefties are leaping to shower the right with guilt by association but are remarkably adept at noticing that kind of fallacy when it is used on their arguments and positions.

I'm not leaping to shower 'the right' with Guilt by Association. But I am condemning their penchant for engaging in the very sort of speech which calls for things like this to happen.

One other point,

Quote:

I've not seen any evidence at all that this nut was even motivated by the right-wing, and even if he were I think blaming who a madman takes inspiration from is inherently problematic.

I agree that there's no real evidence that he's motivated by the right-wing at this time, but to say that when people take inspiration from violent rhetoric it's appropriate to look to the source. Remember this guy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html

Hard to believe that he just up and decided to go kill everyone at a little-known Dem funding source all on his own, when it's regularly targeted by a loon on the airwaves who blames all of societies' woes on it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

That's interesting about the Texas Tower shooter. I recall the event vividly, but i hadn't known that.

1 Reply

@firefly,

That is as tenuous a connection as blaming angry music. When other tragedies occur similar arguments are made against things like Gangsta Rap and Marilyn Manson.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He doesn't say who it is on 'the left' and he doesn't point out that their criticisms are...

So? You yourself are doing what he is criticizing, he doesn't need to name names, there's no dispute that it is happening.

Quote:

....independent of whether or not this guy had any political orientation at all, the right-wing has indeed been doing exactly what Gergen writes here.

So? My point isn't a left/right thing. It's a stupid, jump to conclusions thing. It's stupid regardless of who is doing it.

Quote:

And the criticisms that the Left points out are valid whether or not they were causative in this case. Promoting a culture of violence leads to increased violence, period.

People like yourself go so far as making a causative link without any evidence for it. That's dumb.

Quote:

I'm not leaping to shower 'the right' with Guilt by Association. But I am condemning their penchant for engaging in the very sort of speech which calls for things like this to happen.

Yes you are, you've already blamed them for this event without any valid evidence to do so.

Quote:

I agree that there's no real evidence that he's motivated by the right-wing at this time, but to say that when people take inspiration from violent rhetoric it's appropriate to look to the source.

Jesus, you don't seem to get that you have no evidence upon which to make claims that the right is the "source" in the first place. But I'll have to live with failing to convince you, I'm not likely gonna make a dent in ideology this dense.

1 Reply

This is what circulated on the streets of Dallas 1-2 days before JFK's arrival in November, 1963.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.jpg

So, if it hadn't been Oswald, would someone else have tried to get rid of the "Traitor" that day?

And aren't we seeing and hearing similar things coming from the far right about Obama?

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

People like yourself go so far as making a causative link without any evidence for it. That's dumb.

Really? Link to the post in which I did that.

Quote:

Yes you are, you've already blamed them for this event without any valid evidence to do so.

Same here. You really ought to be able to point to specific language of mine before making accusations such as this. In fact, I find this to be highly amusing and not just a little hypocritical.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

1) Palin did not assert they were surveyors' symbols

No, she didn't. She called them "bull's eyes" in a tweet in November.

Your point Walter?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

That is as tenuous a connection as blaming angry music.

No, the connection isn't tenuous when specific congressional districts, including Giffords, are shown in the cross hairs of a gun sight--and followed with the message, "Don't retreat, reload". There is a specific association being made between taking violent action and anti-government feeling--it is a call to arms. It is reckless and irresponsible. And it could well inspire an anti-government nut like Loughner to take action.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
People like yourself go so far as making a causative link without any evidence for it. That's dumb.

Really? Link to the post in which I did that.

Sozobe has already pointed this out to you. You said that this "is the result" of right-wing calls to violence in post #4472622.

This is a statement that establishes a causative link between the right-wing political speech you criticize and this event. It is a statement that is thus far not based on evidence.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes you are, you've already blamed them for this event without any valid evidence to do so.

Same here. You really ought to be able to point to specific language of mine before making accusations such as this. In fact, I find this to be highly amusing and not just a little hypocritical.

See above for language that has already been specifically pointed out to you by sozobe.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's interesting about the Texas Tower shooter. I recall the event vividly, but i hadn't known that.

(Charles)

Quote:

Whitman's frustrations with his dysfunctional family were complicated by abuse of amphetamines and health issues including headaches that he reported in one of his final notes as "tremendous."[6] A glioblastoma, which is a highly aggressive brain tumor, was discovered during autopsy that experts on the "Connally Commission" concluded may have played a role in his actions
wikipedia

1 Reply

http://oldweirdamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/james-a-garfield118.jpg?w=300&h=205

Damned incendiary Stalwart rhetoric.

0 Replies

@firefly,

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think it's just as silly as blaming Gansta Rap for a specific cop killer.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
People like yourself go so far as making a causative link without any evidence for it. That's dumb.

Really? Link to the post in which I did that.

Sozobe has already pointed this out to you. You said that this "is the result" of right-wing calls to violence in post #4472622.

This is a statement that establishes a causative link between the right-wing political speech you criticize and this event. It is a statement that is thus far not based on evidence.

Jesus, are you guys incapable of reading follow-up? See here:

http://able2know.org/topic/166305-28#post-4472643

I wasn't saying that the SHOOTING was the result of the rhetoric, I was saying that the blame and media attention FOLLOWING the shooting was due to the rhetoric. And if people don't want attention after a fire, they ought to stop telling people to start fires.

Hell, in that SAME POST I wrote:

Quote:

Are Palin, Beck, Bachmann or others on the right-wing guilty of inspiring this guy to assassinate? Probably not, at least not directly. But they are guilty of regularly using rhetoric which can easily be seen as a call for such things. And as you've pointed out before, it's irresponsible and should be condemned.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Yes you are, you've already blamed them for this event without any valid evidence to do so.

Same here. You really ought to be able to point to specific language of mine before making accusations such as this. In fact, I find this to be highly amusing and not just a little hypocritical.

See above for language that has already been specifically pointed out to you by sozobe.

[/quote]

See above for me showing that you are incorrect. Hell, I'll re-post it here for convenience:

Quote:

Quote:
Watching the Left reflexively trying to score political points in connection with this tragedy is disgusting.

What political points? Who scores points by comparing the violent rhetoric? Who is keeping this score? Who is harmed by this?

The right-wing wouldn't have to worry about this if they didn't regularly promote and celebrate what amounts to thinly-veiled calls to violence. But they do, and this is the result. If you don't like it - and it's pretty clear you don't - then maybe next time when your candidates and political leaders start engaging in violent rhetoric, you'll be a little louder about telling them to shut the **** up. You and other right-wingers claim to find such statements distasteful or over the line, but that's hard to believe, as no consequence ever comes from the use of such language by your political leaders.

It's clear I was discussing the 'political points' Finn was referring to and not the shooting itself.

As I said: more than a little funny.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

What I find hard to comprehend is that so called intelligent
people can deny the obvious truth, like Dave for instance.

Quote:

eurocelticyankee wrote:
I know there has been a climate of fear in America,
especially over the last year or so and in connection
with the health reforms.

Dave replies,

Quote:

I 've been here and I have not seen any such thing.
What u "know" is inconsistent with fact.

Dave it's on your TV every night, even your precious
FOX has shown the fear people felt about the health bill.
Are you in denial.

Then we had this.

Quote:

eurocelticyankee wrote:
Some have been inciting anger, hatred & bigotry with
their rhetoric. It's been sad & troublesome to watch.
But I read this morning that a certain Mrs Palin had
said & I quote

"Common-sense conservatives and lovers
of America, don't retreat...instead reload".

Please tell me she didn't say this, surely not. Any intelligent
person should know that this kind of statement could incite a
more volatile or unbalanced person to violence.
Even Mrs Palin must know this.?

Dave replies,

Quote:

Nonsense; this is merely in your mind.

Nonsense!, So Dave it's not possible in your world for some
unstable person to be influenced by the rhetoric of somebody
else. So it's not possible for a crowd to be whipped up into a frenzy
by a good orator. Doh!
You haven't seen much of the world, have you Dave,
either that or you're wearing blinkers.

You still did not give me a straight answer, did Mrs Palin say this?.

Quote:

"Common-sense conservatives and lovers
of America, don't retreat...instead reload".

Well ?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I wasn't saying that the SHOOTING was the result of the rhetoric, I was saying that the blame and media attention FOLLOWING the shooting was due to the rhetoric.

Fair enough, but that is just as wrongheaded to me. You are blaming the rhetoric for the misplaced blame that the article is criticizing rather than blaming the misplaced blame. No matter what it has to be an event that criticizes the right, even if you blame the right for enabling misplaced blame on the part of the left.

It's just a recursive way of making this tragedy about your political foes anyway ("they are to blame for saying the things that we blame them for").

Quote:

See above for me showing that you are incorrect.

I was incorrect, I misread your statement and I retract that accusation. But I don't think it changes much that I have said. Unless you really don't think the left has done what the article accused (jumping to conclusions to focus on blaming Republican political speech) it's just an embarrassing bit of reading incomprehension on my part and it merely means you made it about Republicans a bit less explicitly, though admittedly without ascribing direct blame. There are, however, plenty who do go that far, and unless you really think there aren't I don't see why the article needed to name names.

Quote:

As I said: more than a little funny.

Ripping good laugh. Easily the most hilarious event I've witnessed.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

My entire point is that when you spend all day shouting START FIRES! EMERGENCY!!! ARMAGGEDON!! START FIRES!, and then someone starts a fire, and everyone turns and looks at you, you ought to not be surprised. You ought to not act shocked and hurt that people are looking to you, whether it was directly because of you or not.

But that's what the right-wing is doing here. Acting as if the attention they are now getting is ridiculous. It is not ridiculous.

Quote:

Fair enough, but that is just as wrongheaded to me. You are blaming the rhetoric for the misplaced blame that the article is criticizing rather than blaming the misplaced blame. No matter what it has to be an event that criticizes the right, even if you blame the right for enabling misplaced blame on the part of the left.

It's not misplaced, even if the guy wasn't acting on their rhetoric. If the media has been woken up to the violence inherent in PROMINENT right-wing political speech, it's worthy of attention on its' own. And it is about time.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

1) Palin did not assert they were surveyors' symbols

No, she didn't. She called them "bull's eyes" in a tweet in November.

Your point Walter?

My point is that she didn't assert they were surveyor's symbols as you correctly noted.
And I looked it up: some weeks ago, she named it "bull's eyes".

0 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know