|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Politicizing the AZ massacre | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Well, no kidding. I'm not defending Palin, she's an idiot. But the point I'm trying to make it that, even in light of her idiocy, it's really silly to try and draw parallels instead of placing the blame on, you know, the killer. What we can do is point out that the Tea Party created an atmosphere where nutjobs like Loughner would feel justified in taking this type of action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I haven't read much about this incident.
Do they have any ideas why he did it? Because of her stance on healthcare, or immigration or something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Olbermann specifically mentioned the violence-laden and gun-themed rhetoric of a variety of public figures. My "favorite" has always been the "second amendment solution," which is an absolutely clear call to resort to the use of firearms if political success is not achieved by working with the system. I happen to agree with it within its proper context, and apparently so did the Founding Fathers. He also specifically mentioned himself, apologizing personally for having used violent terminology in the past. And he called not only on Republicans, but everyone to back the fuck down on violent rhetoric, and remember that there are nutjobs who will take a metaphor too far.[/qs] So what, though? People use gun terminology all the time in every day situations. That doesn't give Loughner, or anybody, a built-in escape clause to commit homicide. It's a figure of speech, and Olbermann KNOWS this. He's simply seizing upon the opportunity to shit all over Republicans, something Limbaugh happily does when it comes to Democrats. It's just political rhetoric, and a very inappropriate to time to do so. It's a cheap and pathetic tactic.
The fact is that tea-party folks have used the term "second amendment solution." It is a fact that the second amendment refers to the keeping and bearing of arms. It is a fact that Glenn Beck has brought up the Jefferson quote referring to watering the tree of liberty with blood. I don't find anything wrong with that. All that matters is one's actions and whether or not they can be rationally justified.
But when you put "innocent" imagery like Palins together with blatantly not innocent things liek "second amendment solutions" and "watering the tree of liberty with blood," what do you think is going to be the image created in someone's mind? Irrelevant to Loughner who thinks that the government controls grammar. Are we not supposed to use punctuation because he thinks the government is controlling it? No, he's just fucking nuts, and that's all there is to it. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gave a blistering and vitriolic diatribe about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on her website, seemingly suggesting that she's some kind of co-conspirator in the shooting. You elute the fact that those crosshairs were on Rep. Giffords, that Giffords herself predicted that she would be subject to violence as a result, and that she was proven right. Is that all coincidence? It may very well be. But a responsible person who had done what Sarah Palin had done would apologize, not double-down with offensive, anti-semetic statements about "blood libel." Further - we're talking about the targeted attempted assassination of a Member of Congress. How can that not be political?
She's obviously pro-hunting and strong gun right advocate, and on that basis she wants to identify with the NRA crowd. So why does that necessitate targeted, veiled threats of violence against specific individuals? If appealing to the "NRA crowd" necessitates the use of metaphors and visual language that suggest the outright assassination of political enemies - for instance, Sharon Angle's suggestion that conservative gun owners exercise their "Second Amendment remedy" if they don't like the outcome of elections - then doesn't that speak to a large, systemic problem in our politics? Doesn't that suggest that the "NRA crowd" should be regarded with the same legitimacy as the KKK or neo-Nazis?
To the extent that she somehow coerced an insane man to commit murder is terribly asinine Why? Sarah Palin put a target on Giffords. Giffords predicted that she would be the subject of violence as a direct result. Then she was the subject of a violent assassination attempt. Did all that happen simply by coincidence? That's what I would describe as "asinine."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
. That doesn't give Loughner, or anybody, a built-in escape clause to commit homicide. It's a figure of speech, and Olbermann KNOWS this. Nobody's saying that Loughner should get a pass for this. Ultimately he's solely responsible for his actions. But not all figures of speech are, or should be, permissible in the national political discourse precisely because they may inflame crazy people into crazy (but predictable!) actions. The Tuscon tragedy was an entirely predictable result of conservative assassination language. How do I know that? Because Giffords predicted it. She precisely predicted this outcome. Did that happen by accident, Hyro?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I haven't read much about this incident. Do they have any ideas why he did it? Because of her stance on healthcare, or immigration or something? I have speculations, but that is it. It is worth mentioning that Giffords did beat a Tea Party candidate in the last election. It is also worth mentioning that Loughner could have been a complete nutcase trying to impress Jodie Foster. However, given the strained political environment in the US right now I tend to suspect a political motivation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
We all know that we can't get through this thread without a Michael Moore quote, so here it is:
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web with crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he be sitting right now? Just asking." - Michael Moore
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
The Westboro Baptist Church plans to go to the funerals of the victims of this massacre and protest, claiming that these deaths should not be mourned because "(the) shooter had been sent by God to punish sinners in the country".
Mr. Dean Blundell, radio host on the 102.1 Edge morning show in Toronto Ontario, made a deal with Shirley Phelps-Roper granting her some air time in exchange for cancelling their protest at the little 9 year old girl's funeral.
Full Story
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Maybe it's a cultural thing but in Canada, crosshairs are definitely associated with shooting. One of the first rules of firearm safety is don't put your crosshairs on anything unless you intend to kill it. The point is that the crosshairs are references to Representatives supporting ObamaCare, not a "hit list" targetting people for assassination. Targets are much more benign, often associated with dart boards. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Yeah, obviously, if she instructed people to kill her political opposition, she would be held liable to some degree. Or if she had invited conservatives dissatisfied with election losses to investigate "Second Amendment remedies"?
The point is that the crosshairs are references to Representatives supporting ObamaCare, not a "hit list" targetting people for assassination. It's conservative murder language. It's an attempt to construe one's political enemies as enemies of America, and to employ assassination language to rally the base. Hyro, nobody thinks Sarah Palin actually wanted anybody to be shot. Nobody thinks that she was literally calling for the death of Giffords or anybody else. The point here is that there are some things you don't say in politics, some kinds of rhetoric you don't employ, precisely because of its predictable effect of inciting crazy people to violence. You don't put a cross-hairs on your political opponents. You don't invite armed Tea Partiers to use their "Second Amendment remedy" if they don't like how an election shakes out. You don't ask your supporters to shoot Census workers for being nosy. You don't invite your supporters to fire guns at photographs of your opponent to "symbolize your victory", as Gifford's Tea Party opponent did at a campaign event. You don't do those things, not because you don't want sane people to think you're asking for your opponent to be killed. You do it because you don't want insane people to think you're asking for your opponent to be killed. Nobody thinks Sarah Palin wanted this. The point is, she's taking literally no responsibility at all for how her rhetoric incited a crazy person to murder. The point is, she considers herself a victim of the Tuscon shooting, not a contributor to the environment that made it possible. And she ludicrously considers any criticism of her contributory rhetoric to be itself an incitement of violence against her, at the same time that she asserts that it's impossible for political rhetoric to contribute to violence. She's a dangerous idiot, and Giffords has paid the price - just as she predicted she might.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
QFT She's a dangerous idiot Unfortunately, the 'idiot' aspect will interfere with her changing her behaviour, leaving the 'dangerous' aspect unchanged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Mr. Dean Blundell, radio host on the 102.1 Edge morning show in Toronto Ontario, made a deal with Shirley Phelps-Roper granting her some air time in exchange for cancelling their protest at the little 9 year old girl's funeral. Kudos to Blundell for successfully averting an outrage on top of this heinous crime. Note that Blundell didn't use a "second amendment solution" to solve his political problem. He used words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Olbermann specifically mentioned the violence-laden and gun-themed rhetoric of a variety of public figures. My "favorite" has always been the "second amendment solution," which is an absolutely clear call to resort to the use of firearms if political success is not achieved by working with the system. I happen to agree with it within its proper context, and apparently so did the Founding Fathers. Irrelevant, unless you actually think that a "second amendment solution" is an appropriate response to losing an election, which is how it's been used so far. Do you really believe that violent revolution and political assassination belong in the toolkit of American politics? Really? Because a "second amendment solution" means murdering your countrymen because you disagree with them. Because you lost an election, and have sour grapes. It's saying "if I can't win, nobody wins!" The Founding Fathers weren't gods, Hyro. Appealing to their authority is as much a fallacy as any other authority. Referring to a "second amendment solution" to political problems like healthcare and immigration like the Tea Party does are patently absurd, unethical, and abhorrent. We aren't talking about a government setting up concentration camps here, we aren't talking about the dissolution of a representative government or a military coup. I don't give a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers thought. Thomas Jefferson thought it was hunky dory to possess slaves. What matters is the argument, not the arguer, and many of the positions held by the Founding Fathers have completely different context and application today. Some of those positions, like slave ownership, are no longer acceptable in the modern world. "Second amendment solutions" are another one of those positions that have a different meaning today. You cannot, in any way, shape or form, successfully prosecute a civilian campaign against the US Government using small arms. The Army has fucking artillery. And tanks. And nukes. The context of violent political revolution has completely changed since the days of the Founding Fathers. Now, violent revolution and "second amendment solutions" means targeting and assassinating political opposition leaders, terrorism, and so on. Personally, I find that unacceptable, to the point that I'll openly say that any idiot who suggests a "second amendment solution" is in any way appropriate for dealing with political opposition is an immoral asshole with an ethical sense more akin to fucking Stalin than any of the American Founding Fathers. ...and I still won;t advocate shooting such an immoral asshole, because the very notion of murdering someone because they disagree with you is counter to the entire spirit of the Freedom of Speech, even aside from the fact that you shouldn't advocate killing people in general, because killing people is pretty high up on the "wrong" scale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
However, given the strained political environment in the US right now I tend to suspect a political motivation. He shot a member of Congress... of course it was a political motivation I wonder if he was angry about something, or if he was calmly trying making a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
He shot a member of Congress... of course it was a political motivation Brinkley was not politically motivated when he shot Reagan. Brinkley was motivated by his infatuation with Jodie Foster. He thought shooting Reagan would endear her to him. I was more or less hedging my bet in case Loughner turns out to be completely psychotic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024