Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,792 Year: 4,049/9,624 Month: 920/974 Week: 247/286 Day: 8/46 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Politicizing the AZ massacre
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 91 of 185 (600516)
01-14-2011 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
01-14-2011 7:34 PM


Cop Killa
We're claiming that the Paranoid Style of Politics, as practiced by headlining conservative voices and leaders, leads some people to have paranoid ideas about politics.
Yeah, and you have no evidence to support that.
CBSNews: source
quote:
investigators examining Loughner's computer files and phone records have thus far found no evidence that he has a specific connection to any hate or fringe group.
Jared Loughner believed that the Democratic government was out to control everybody's attitudes, perceptions, and actions.
He never made any mention of democrat or republican government. Unless you have actual evidence maybe?
quote:
Loughner's statement in a YouTube video that: "the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammer. I'm able to control every belief and religion by being the mind controller!"
But a responsible - and presidential - person who used that language would apologize in the light of Loughner's actions, even if they had no direct responsibility. They would apologize for how a crazy person might have taken them out of all context, and hope that nobody would ever use violence to settle electoral scores.
So you want her to apologize even if her language (as the evidence points to) had no direct effect?
You know what, then I will apologize too, because sometimes on stage I use harsh words that may have lead crazy people to do crazy things - maybe even this case, who knows? I mean, since we don't give a fuck about evidence, who really knows? In fact, why don't the producers, directors, writers and even actors of every violent movie where a politician has been shot apologize since their actions may have lead to a crazy person doing a crazy thing, maybe even this case, who knows? I mean, since we don't give a fuck about evidence, who really knows?
Maybe Percy should apologize for having this forum where harsh words could lead crazy people (like Mabus) to do crazy things.
Obama's call for an end to the bullshit was enough.
Oh, come on. Almost none of them represent any reality at all. Those guys are MBA's, middle class guys making rap for suburban white youth. Gangsta rap is for white kids.
You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Don't mistake mainstream hip hop for real rap. Go to a club in Bed-Stuy where there's freestyle rap going on and tell me those guys aren't living that life for real.
Where did Tupac get his MBA at? Biggy? Big Pun? Easy E? Mc Wren? Snoop? Dre? Mos Def? Freeway? Ice T? Eric B? Ice Cube? Bushwick Bill? Scarface? ....realllly, dude, MBA's?
And again - nobody treats the claims of hip-hop music like real claims. When Jay-Z says he has 99 problems but a bitch ain't one, that's not reported and repeated as something true.
What about when Ice T said:
I got my black shirt on.
I got my black gloves on.
I got my ski mask on.
This shit's been too long.
I got my twelve gauge sawed off.
I got my headlights turned off.
I'm 'bout to bust some shots off.
I'm 'bout to dust some cops off.
Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, fuck police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your family's grievin'
(fuck 'em)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.
I got my brain on hype.
Tonight'll be your night.
I got this long-assed knife,
and your neck looks just right.
My adrenaline's pumpin'.
I got my stereo bumpin'.
I'm 'bout to kill me somethin'
A pig stopped me for nuthin'!
Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, fuck police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(fuck her)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.
White America freaked the fuck out! Claiming the lyrics inspired at least two cop killings and increased racial tension between cops and the black community, what the fuck was that? Wasn't that NOT taking rap as entertainment, but instead treating it as if it made real claims?
quote:
source Dennis R. Martin (Former President, National Association of Chiefs of Police):
"The misuse of the First Amendment is graphically illustrated in Time-Warner's attempt to insert into the mainstream culture the vile and dangerous lyrics of the Ice-T song entitled Cop Killer. The Body Count album containing Cop Killer was shipped throughout the United States in miniature body bags. Only days before distribution of the album was voluntarily suspended, Time-Warner flooded the record market with a half million copies. The Cop Killer song has been implicated in at least two shooting incidents and has inflamed racial tensions in cities across the country. Those who work closely with the families and friends of slain officers volunteering for the American Police Hall of Fame and Museum, are outraged by the message of Cop Killer. It is an affront to the officers144 in 1992 alonewho have been killed in the line of duty while upholding the laws of our society and protecting all its citizens."
But according to you EVERYONE knows rap is entertainment. It was so fucked up that the song was pulled and never released.
Ever heard of rapper Paris? A real militant black dude (Nation of Islam) - this one actually has a bachelor's degree. His song Bush Killa, also censored because, you guessed it, it was about assassinating Bush Sr. It was thought the lyrics would actually inspire someone to do it.
Just entertainment, really?
Do you understand that? That when Sarah Palin says "death panels", millions of Americans believe her?
Do you understand that when Ice T says "Fuck the police, for your freedom. Fuck the police, don't be a pussy. Fuck the police, have some muthafuckkin' courage. Die, die, die pig, die!" black Americans believe him? You see, they are stupid and don't know any better. They'll just go out and kill cops because of the lyrics! Don't believe me, that's what the President of the Police Cheif's thinks.
Loughner's journals contain notes about his plans, which he refers to consistently as an assassination of Rep. Giffords. She's targeted by name in his letters and journals. We know he had previously visited Rep. Giffords at another event, probably to scout her security (if there even was any.)
Yes, but I'm asking for the link between "practicing conservative voices that lead Loughner to have paranoid ides about politics." Because this piece of evidence that you're claiming exists has elluded law enforcement who have checked his computer files and phone records.
Source
quote:
investigators examining Loughner's computer files and phone records have thus far found no evidence that he has a specific connection to any hate or fringe group.
We know he planned ahead, Oni.
And?
This wasn't a random act of violence by a crazy person who snapped; this was a premeditated, planned act of political assassination of a specific member of Congress.
Right, he killed a congress woman. And now for your evidence that conservative voices lead him to paranoid ideas about politics. Waiting.
Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm, Ayn Rand's We The Living ...none of that would fit the bill.
Unless...wait...are you saying that communism is actually true conservatism?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2011 7:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2011 11:54 PM onifre has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 185 (600526)
01-14-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by xongsmith
01-14-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Media blew it (again)
BTW - many mention that the AZ shooter had a copy of the Communist Manifesto. He also had a copy of Mein Kampf. He seemed infatuated with the North Pole.
Well, then he sounds like he's either full of shit and knows jack shit about politics, or he's just crazy. I'm gonna go with door number 2.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by xongsmith, posted 01-14-2011 3:42 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 93 of 185 (600527)
01-14-2011 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by onifre
01-14-2011 10:02 PM


Re: Cop Killa
Yeah, and you have no evidence to support that.
Really? Words have no ability to influence anyone at all?
That's not at all what you're claiming in the other thread. What you're claiming in the other thread is the exact opposite, that words do influence people. Are you sure you're just not arguing because you're obsessed with contradicting me?
He never made any mention of democrat or republican government.
The government is democratic, Oni.
So you want her to apologize even if her language (as the evidence points to) had no direct effect?
Yes! Because her language, along with other examples of conservative murder rhetoric, had an indirect effect. It contributed to an environment that made this attack an inevitability - just as Giffords had predicted.
Don't mistake mainstream hip hop for real rap.
I notice when you get your back up against the wall, you resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy. "He's not a real conservative. "He's not a real rapper."
Go to a club in Bed-Stuy where there's freestyle rap going on and tell me those guys aren't living that life for real.
I really did think you were a lot less naive than that.
White America freaked the fuck out!
Right, but CNN never reported that Tupac claimed to have shot any cops, because the lyrics of the song were understood to be entertainment. You're conflating two arguments, here - one is the conservative argument that people can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. My argument is that conservatives are offering fantasy as though it were reality.
Do you understand the difference? People understand that Tupac is trying to make an entertaining song. Sarah Palin isn't trying to be entertaining when she talks about death panels, she's actually trying to convince people that the American Care Act institutes real, live death panels.
Wasn't that NOT taking rap as entertainment, but instead treating it as if it made real claims?
No, it was claiming that entertainment would convince people to shoot cops. Nobody reported it as Tupac confessing to shooting a cop.
Yes, but I'm asking for the link between "practicing conservative voices that lead Loughner to have paranoid ides about politics."
No, you asked for evidence that he targeted Giffords specifically and didn't just shoot up random people at a random Safeway. That's another thing I've noticed you do - when you challenge people for evidence for their claims and then they provide it, you pretend that you asked for evidence for a completely different claim.
And what? He got paranoid all by himself? He never talked to anybody in his life about politics, or heard anyone talk about it on TV or the radio?
That's absurd.
And?
And, it wasn't just "somebody random who just happened to be in politics", like you said it was. You were utterly wrong about that - Giffords was the planned and intended target from the get-go, according to Loughner's own writings.
Right, he killed a congress woman.
No, she lived. Jesus, Oni, do you have any idea about what we're talking about? Maybe you should do a little research on this issue before you make claims about what's true or not, because you keep being completelhy wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 01-14-2011 10:02 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 01-15-2011 1:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 94 of 185 (600530)
01-15-2011 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by crashfrog
01-14-2011 11:54 PM


Re: Cop Killa
What you're claiming in the other thread is the exact opposite, that words do influence people.
Not at all, and I answered you in that other thread. My point in the other thread has nothing to do with people being influenced by words. Like I said in that thread, no one would have to be influenced to commit violence for Islam to still be a religion that promotes violence.
You see, promoting violence is saying the words. But I make no mention of anyone reacting to or being influenced by those words. If I did, provide the quote.
Can you understand that or is this gonna drag out like the embassy crap?
Are you sure you're just not arguing because you're obsessed with contradicting me?
No, you just happen to post a shit load more than anyone else, and you happen to be wrong about politics a shit load. Plus your liberal arrogance really pisses me off. You drink the same Kool-Aid as those on the right, poured from a different cup, and that makes you think you're right.
That, and I just don't like you - at least your forum persona. No hard feelings I hope.
The government is democratic, Oni.
I had to go back to your post to see how you worded it. You said:
quote:
Jared Loughner believed that the Democratic government was out to control everybody's attitudes, perceptions, and actions. Don't you think that repeated claims by top political leaders of the conservative mainstream, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, that Democratic liberals including the President want to control everybody's attitudes, perceptions, and actions might have contributed to that view?
You used democratic liberal so I figured you meant democrats.
Yes! Because her language, along with other examples of conservative murder rhetoric, had an indirect effect.
Evidence?
I notice when you get your back up against the wall, you resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy. "He's not a real conservative. "He's not a real rapper."
Geez, how white are you? You know Hip Hop incorporates rap but it's not rap, right? Just as Hip Hop incorporates DJ'ing and scratching but Hip Hop isn't DJ'ing and scratching.
Hip Hop artist is synonymous with rapper, but it's not the same thing.
I really did think you were a lot less naive than that.
Since I've been there and seen it myself, I don't have to be naive as you say and take anyone's word for it. And the fun part is, I'm moving not far from there in March to Bushwick. So I'll take a pic for you.
Right, but CNN never reported that Tupac claimed to have shot any cops
Oh that white...
It's Ice T not Tupac!
Do you understand the difference? People understand that Tupac is trying to make an entertaining song. Sarah Palin isn't trying to be entertaining when she talks about death panels, she's actually trying to convince people that the American Care Act institutes real, live death panels.
Ehh, ok, I'll give you that.
No, it was claiming that entertainment would convince people to shoot cops.
Or that it sets up an environment with increased racial tension where cop killing becomes inevitable. You are now claiming that the current poltical rhetoric does the same thing. Neither claim is supported by evidence.
No, you asked for evidence that he targeted Giffords specifically and didn't just shoot up random people at a random Safeway.
You're right, I did ask for that. I hadn't read the journal yet.
But ok, do you now have evidence that he was influenced by right-wing rhetoric as you continue to claim?
And what? He got paranoid all by himself? He never talked to anybody in his life about politics, or heard anyone talk about it on TV or the radio?
That's absurd.
I haven't said he didn't, but don't pretend to know what influenced him. Because no one currently knows that.
And, it wasn't just "somebody random who just happened to be in politics", like you said it was. You were utterly wrong about that
I never said it was. When you made the claim I simply asked for the evidence, since I hadn't read or known about the the journal yet. That's why I asked for the evidence, because maybe I missed something, which I did.
When I answered you in this last post I had read the journal and completely forgot that I even asked for it. But that is a minor point, which I will concede on. She was targeted.
Now, to the point that right-wing rhetoric was directly or indirectly responsible, there still needs to be physical evidence provided.
Oni writes:
Right, he killed a congress woman.
CF writes:
No, she lived. Jesus, Oni, do you have any idea about what we're talking about?
Oh calm the fuck down, I said "kill" instead of "shot," don't be such a drama queen. I've been saying shot the whole thread.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2011 11:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2011 1:03 PM onifre has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 95 of 185 (600532)
01-15-2011 2:06 AM


Time for some balance
Well well, seems like the guy from Europe has to bring some balance (damn I sound like Fox News now), to this "The right uses bad rhetoric!" thing.
In our country, the politician Pim Fortuyn was assasinated back in 2002. His assassin confessed that he had shot him because he wanted "to stop him from exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak members of society" in seeking political power.".
In the months leading up to the shooting, the "left side" parties had been calling him a dangerous man, a danger to society and something the Dutch should not have as a leader, openly equating him with fascism and Hitler. Many think this helped create the environment that led to his assassination. Leading to the popular phrase "De kogels kwamen van links" or " The bullets came from the left".
Anyway, just saying that it's not just the "right side" that uses "dangerous rhetoric".
Bear in mind, that in the US, is views would still be considered to the left side of the spectrum on many things, he's in favour of social healthcare, for one.

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 2:57 PM Huntard has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 185 (600591)
01-15-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
01-15-2011 1:14 AM


To be fair, you can't say that John Wilkes Booth was influenced by Southern rhetoric!
Like I said in that thread, no one would have to be influenced to commit violence for Islam to still be a religion that promotes violence.
Is it just that you don't understand what the word "promotes" means? That must be the case.
For instance, for me to truthfully claim that Rogaine promotes hair growth, somebody actually has to grow some hair as a result.
Can you understand that or is this gonna drag out like the embassy crap?
It's going to drag out if you're not prepared to admit that you say things that are wrong:
I said "kill" instead of "shot," don't be such a drama queen. I've been saying shot the whole thread.
Ok, but the difference between the words "kill" and "shot" is that the latter is an accurate description of events and the former is not. If you simply can't ever admit to error, then yes, this is going to "drag out." I'm not prepared to simply let you say whatever wrong things you think you need to lie about to defend your position. If your views can't be defended on the basis of the truth, they're indefensible.
You used democratic liberal so I figured you meant democrats.
Right. The ones who run the government. It's a democratic government, Oni.
Evidence?
The enormous increase in death threats against Congresspeople. Conservatives openly carrying loaded firearms to peaceful townhall meetings. The Ron Paul facestomp. The IRS suicide attack. The Philidelphia shooter. The ACLU shooter. The George Tiller murder. The Department of Homeland Security warnings about right-wing domestic terrorism. "Second Amendment remedies." "Kill him."
Why do I think that Sarah Palin's speech contributed to an increase in right-wing political violence? Because of all the increased right-wing political violence. Did that stuff just not happen?
Ehh, ok, I'll give you that.
Well? Don't you think it's kind of important? Don't you think that, when people assess the truth of claims being made to them, they take into account whether the person making the claim seems to believe it? As it happens, they do. Don't you think, therefore, that phony claims made in the context of politics matter more than phony claims made in the context of fictional entertainment?
But ok, do you now have evidence that he was influenced by right-wing rhetoric as you continue to claim?
Sure - the evidence is, he targeted a liberal Democrat for assassination because he believed the Democratic government was trying to control people's thoughts, attitudes, and actions. Are you saying that we should assume that his belief in that regard was utterly unconnected to the common conservative complaint that the Democratic government is trying to control people's thoughts, attitudes, and actions?
That makes no sense at all.
I never said it was.
No, that's exactly what you said:
quote:
All you have is a guy who shot a group of people who some happen to be involved in politics.
It's perfectly fine for you to change your mind, Oni. If new facts you weren't aware of lead you to change your mind on things, I'm not going to hammer you for it (though I may try to show you how your new position should logically lead you to change your mind on other things, too.) But I'm not prepared to have this conversation with you on the basis of you telling lies about what you did or didn't say. What you said is a matter of record. For better or worse we can all go back and see exactly what you wrote.
You didn't know Jared Loughner had targeted Giffords specifically. That's fair - this is a very recent event and nobody can be an expert on it immediately. The responsible thing to do is admit you were wrong, not deny that you ever said something that everybody can go back and see that you said.
Now, to the point that right-wing rhetoric was directly or indirectly responsible, there still needs to be physical evidence provided.
The physical evidence is laying in a Tuscon hospital. Last reports were that she had regained consciousness to some degree. I doubt she'll ever resume her duties as a member of Congress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 01-15-2011 1:14 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 01-15-2011 2:17 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 97 of 185 (600606)
01-15-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
01-15-2011 1:03 PM


Letters since 2007
Is it just that you don't understand what the word "promotes" means? That must be the case.
Me: "We should go out and beat the shit out of everyone we talk to that disagrees with our opinions."
My friends: "No thanks. Geez, Oni likes to promote violence as a resolution to disagreements. I'm not going to do it, but he sure likes to promote it."
I'm just presenting an idea for their approval or disapproval. No one has to be influenced by me for me to continue to present this idea.
Ok, but the difference between the words "kill" and "shot" is that the latter is an accurate description of events and the former is not. If you simply can't ever admit to error, then yes, this is going to "drag out." I'm not prepared to simply let you say whatever wrong things you think you need to lie about to defend your position. If your views can't be defended on the basis of the truth, they're indefensible.
Still acting like a cunty drama queen? You could have just said, as we all do in this forum: "Did you mean, shot instead of kill?"
But instead you jumped to claiming I had no idea what I was talking about, as though I haven't seen any news on this. It was a pathetic attempt at trying to discredit me. And for that, you remain a cunty drama queen.
Right. The ones who run the government. It's a democratic government, Oni.
Wtf are you talking about? It's a democatic government whether there is a liberal or a conservative at the helm.
He never mentions liberal government, democrats, republicans or conservative, that is the point. He said "government" which he's had an issue with for a long time, since before Obama. So it has nothing to do with anything new or the new president.
Why do I think that Sarah Palin's speech contributed to an increase in right-wing political violence? Because of all the increased right-wing political violence. Did that stuff just not happen?
He was following the congress woman since 2007. No Palin then.
What you are talking about is just violence in politics, which has always existed.
Don't you think, therefore, that phony claims made in the context of politics matter more than phony claims made in the context of fictional entertainment?
No. More people pay attention to entertainers than politics. More deaths, death threats, violence, stalking, kidnappings, have occured to people in entertainment than in politics. (ABE: US politics)
Biggy, killed by west coast rap supporters who believed the problems between west coast and east coast rappers was real.
Tupac, killed by east coast rap supporters who thought the problems were real.
50 cent, shot 9 times for the same reasons.
La Rock, same thing.
Jam Master J, same thing.
Proof, same thing.
VL Mike, same thing.
Freaky Tah, same thing.
And these are just a few rappers off the top of my head that are now dead (except for 50 cent) because people that listen to rap thought the west coast/east coast beef was real.
That makes no sense at all.
It makes no sense because YOU are using the same words to describe both things. It's a nice tactic, but it doesn't work when we have a letter to or from (I forget) the congress woman way the fuck back in 2007, and copies of Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Plus, his computer files and phone records don't tie him to any one specific group.
You are trying to connect it to Palin and her rhetoric (or that of her ilk) when the evidence is just not there.
It's perfectly fine for you to change your mind, Oni.
Which I did on the matter of him targeting her. But since it was way back in 2007, there is no evidence for the current political rhetoric to have been the motivating factor. Him shooting her had been a long time coming, sadly.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2011 1:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 2:53 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 185 (600691)
01-16-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by onifre
01-15-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
My friends: "No thanks. Geez, Oni likes to promote violence as a resolution to disagreements.
And why would anyone care about that or object, except for the reasonable conclusion that saying things that promote violence leads to violence? Why would anyone care that Islam is a religion that "promotes violence" except for the reasonable conclusion that speech that promotes violence results in violence?
Oni, could I truthfully market a product as "promoting hair growth" unless people actually grew hair while using it? Do you just not understand what the word "promotes" means? It has a few definitions; clearly you're getting confused. People don't say "promotes violence" to suggest that violence is being "advanced in rank", as in "promoted to Brigadier General", or "promotes violence" as in "present merchandise for buyer acceptance", as in "Hi, I'm here to promote Bacardi Spirits"; they mean "promotes violence" as in "to help bring into being", as in "Rogaine promotes hair growth."
Words - they mean things. One of the things you do when your back is against the wall is pretend that they don't.
I'm just presenting an idea for their approval or disapproval.
And what possible reason could they have for disapproval except the reasonable conclusion that disseminating that particular idea would contribute to violence?
You're asserting that there's no such thing as a "speech act"; that actions and ideas are inherently and unbrigably separate. But that's clearly nonsense - if advertising can promote the purchase of soap, political speech can certainly promote signing on to the use of political violence - especially when that speech advocates political violence, as Sharon Angle did when she invoked "Second Amendment remedies."
You could have just said, as we all do in this forum: "Did you mean, shot instead of kill?"
And you could just say "sorry, I meant 'shot' instead of 'kill', and misspoke. Sorry for my error." You know, instead of what you're doing now, which is pretending like you're incapable of error and spewing misogynistic insults.
Like I said this will drag on just as long as you insist on lying.
It's a democatic government whether there is a liberal or a conservative at the helm.
It's a Republican government when Republicans are in charge. It's a Democratic government when Democrats run it.
How are you not following this, Oni?
He was following the congress woman since 2007. No Palin then.
Yeah, and he didn't shoot her then, did he? He didn't shoot anyone, or indeed engage in any kind of politicized violence at all, until national mainstream conservatives started advocating political violence.
In fact there's kind of a pattern of that - the Philadelphia shooter had been listening to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for years, but never picked up a gun and shot anybody until national conservative voices started using murder speech. The ACLU would-be shooter never picked up a gun with the intent to shoot anybody until national conservative voices started using murder speech. Hundreds of people who had disagreements with their members of Congress never actually picked up the phone and started telling Congressmen and women that they wanted to assassinate them until - coincidentally? - national conservative voices started using murder speech.
Funny, though, I guess that's all a complete coincidence.
Plus, his computer files and phone records don't tie him to any one specific group.
If you ran an advertising agency, you might try to justify your fees to your clients by trying to prove your advertising was effective. That is - you would want to be able to prove to your clients that your advertising promoted the purchase of their products. For instance, you would try to show that, in the markets and time periods where your ads appeared in popular magazines and on television, the purchase of the advertised product - say, Irish Spring soap - increased by 6%. Everyone would understand that to be a compelling case that you were an effective advertiser who could make money for his clients by producing ads that influenced people to purchase more of their products.
What would be utterly irrelevant to that case would be any proof that any of the people who actually bought the soap actually saw the ads - how would you even prove it? Even if they watched the programs where the commercials appeared, they might have left the room, been in the bathroom, maybe just not even paying attention. Even if they could be shown to be subscribers to the magazines where your soap ads appeared, maybe they didn't even read those pages. And, of course, many people are going to have seen your ads without subscribing to the magazine or watching the program where the commercial appeared, because in the modern era we're suffused with mass media. It's everywhere you go. Maybe they saw the commercial in a bar. Maybe they read the magazine at the dentist.
Or maybe they never saw any of your advertising at all, and the reason they started buying Irish Spring soap is because all their friends, who do consume your various forms of advertising, started doing it. It's called "word of mouth".
All of that is an explanation for how people can be influenced by your advertising without any proof of a direct causal chain between your ad and their soap purchases. Despite an increase of thousands of units purchased in these specific markets, there's not going to be any case where even a single person can be found who bought Irish Spring soap as a result of your advertising.
But corporations continue to spend billions on it every year. Because it works! Because speech matters. Because advocacy works. Because it's possible to influence millions of people in entirely predictable ways as a result of mass media. If you were defending ad expenditures, the mere correlation between a mass change in behavior and the presence of advertising would be sufficient. And, similarly, it's sufficient in this case. What political groups Jared Loughner, specifically, was involved with, and what politicians he esteemed and paid attention to, is an utter irrelevancy. It's no more relevant than it would be relevant whether or not the people you influenced with your advertising also had other brands of soap in their homes. Jared Loughner's specific political activities are a complete red herring. Conservative murder speech created the environment that fostered this crime, just as it's fostered hundreds of other crimes since 2008. The fact that none of those crimes are the result of a direct causal chain from Sarah Palin's mouth to the bullets coming out of a gun? Utterly irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 01-15-2011 2:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-16-2011 6:36 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 107 by Jazzns, posted 01-17-2011 11:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 185 (600692)
01-16-2011 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Huntard
01-15-2011 2:06 AM


Re: Time for some balance
Anyway, just saying that it's not just the "right side" that uses "dangerous rhetoric".
Well, except that here in the US, it is. Obviously it's different in the Netherlands, but so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Huntard, posted 01-15-2011 2:06 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 01-16-2011 6:46 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 01-17-2011 4:43 AM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 100 of 185 (600726)
01-16-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
01-16-2011 2:53 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
And why would anyone care about that or object, except for the reasonable conclusion that saying things that promote violence leads to violence?
Because things that promote violence, like movies and TV shows, don't actually lead to violence.
Oni, could I truthfully market a product as "promoting hair growth" unless people actually grew hair while using it?
Lets change the product to something you are probably more familiar with.
Can you market a penis growth pill even though it doesn't actually make your penis grow? Yes, of course you can.
And what possible reason could they have for disapproval except the reasonable conclusion that disseminating that particular idea would contribute to violence?
Yeah, no shit! The idea to go beat someone up IS an idea that woulod contribute to violence. Wow! But does it change the fact that I still presented the idea even if no one goes with me to beat someone up?
You're asserting that there's no such thing as a "speech act"; that actions and ideas are inherently and unbrigably separate.
No I am not. There most certainly is speech that can cause people to act violently. Hitler's speeches are a good example. But there is proof of that.
Palin's speech and that of the right-wing could very well have lead to Loughner shooting the congress woman, but according to law enforcement who have looked into it, they have concluded that at this point there is no link.
I'll take the word of those physically investigating the crime before I accept your conclusion.
And you could just say "sorry, I meant 'shot' instead of 'kill', and misspoke.
I would have, but you didn't give me a chance. You jumped down my throat suggesting I had no knowledge of what was going on. After that do you really think I'm gonna be polite and say sorry? After you acted like a bitch over one misplaced word? I would have said sorry had you come correct. But you didn't.
Next time be nice.
It's a Republican government when Republicans are in charge. It's a Democratic government when Democrats run it.
How are you not following this, Oni?
Lets try this again because you are obviously having trouble comprehending the words you quoted.
Our government remains democratic whether there is a liberal or conservative at the helm. As in, it is a democracy whether there is a liberal or conservative at the helm.
In fact there's kind of a pattern of that - the Philadelphia shooter had been listening to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for years, but never picked up a gun and shot anybody until national conservative voices started using murder speech. The ACLU would-be shooter never picked up a gun with the intent to shoot anybody until national conservative voices started using murder speech. Hundreds of people who had disagreements with their members of Congress never actually picked up the phone and started telling Congressmen and women that they wanted to assassinate them until - coincidentally? - national conservative voices started using murder speech.
Funny, though, I guess that's all a complete coincidence.
No, all that you have written could very well be true and it would still have no relevance tn this particular case. In this particular case, according to law enforcement that is investgating it, there is currently no connection. That is just a fact. You can suggest otherwise, but it would just be speculation.
Untill you have hard evidence you have nothing.
Conservative murder speech created the environment that fostered this crime, just as it's fostered hundreds of other crimes since 2008. The fact that none of those crimes are the result of a direct causal chain from Sarah Palin's mouth to the bullets coming out of a gun? Utterly irrelevant.
Yeah, I get that this is your opinion, but it remains just that, your opinion. There is no hard evidence to support the assertion that Palin's hate speech, the "targets" and right-wing rhetoric indirectly caused this. And that's not my opinion (I remain unconvinced), this is the opinion of law enforcement that is investigating the case.
What we are discussing is whether Palin and specifically the right-wing rhetoric (not just an overall hostile political environment - which would still be unevidenced) was responsible. And there just isn't any hard evidence. It could have been Mein Kampf, or the Communist Manifesto just the same. Or voices in his head. Or the neighbors dog like the Son of Sam guy. Who knows?
I'm not saying what you're suggesting isn't quite possibly the reason, and I actually agree with some of your conclusions, but these are just opinions. I'm saying there is no hard evidence, especially none to where the news media had to jump on that story and run with it causing the same environment that you/many have accused the right-wing of doing.
That's just irresponsible wouldn't you agree?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 7:53 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 185 (600727)
01-16-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
01-16-2011 2:57 PM


Re: Time for some balance
Well, except that here in the US, it is.
Many people here in the US believe left-wing rhetoric is also dangerous, especially far left rhetoric. Chomsky comes to mind, and that has been suggested by even liberals. I think that is non-sense, but still, it is suggested.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 2:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 7:56 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 102 of 185 (600732)
01-16-2011 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by onifre
01-16-2011 6:36 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
Because things that promote violence, like movies and TV shows, don't actually lead to violence.
That doesn't answer my question. Why would people object to speech that "promotes violence" unless what they objected to what the increased violence that happened as a result?
If the phrase "promotes violence" isn't meant to refer to the effect whereby violence is increased, there's no reason for anyone to find the promotion of violence any more objectionable than the promotion of flossing or dandruff shampoo.
Can you market a penis growth pill even though it doesn't actually make your penis grow?
Yes. But can I market it by saying "promotes penis growth"? Not truthfully, unless it actually increases the size of your penis. We're not talking about marketing; we're talking about what people mean when they say "promotes violence." And what they mean is "causes an increase in violence", just as "promotes penis growth" means "causes an increase in the size of the penis."
The idea to go beat someone up IS an idea that woulod contribute to violence.
Yes, you're right. Similarly, telling your supporters that if they don't like the outcome of an election they should seek "Second Amendment remedies" is an idea that would contribute to violence. Having your supporters fire an automatic firearm at a picture of your campaign opponent is an idea that would contribute to violence. Telling your supporters to "reload" in the face of political defeat is an idea that would contribute to violence. Calling a obstetrician "Tiller the Killer" and demanding, on national TV, that he be killed to save unborn children is an idea that would contribute to violence.
How do I know that? Why, because of all the violence that these speech acts contributed to.
Palin's speech and that of the right-wing could very well have lead to Loughner shooting the congress woman, but according to law enforcement who have looked into it, they have concluded that at this point there is no link.
And none of us are saying there's a direct legal link between Loughner and Palin. Indeed there's absolutely no link of any kind.
That's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether conservative murder speech, such as that said by Palin, has contributed to an environment of increased political violence from the right.
But there is proof of that.
What kind of proof? Hitler spoke about killing Jews to the people of Germany; then, the people of Germany embarked on an enormous program to exterminate Jews. But what's the proof the two are related? You don't have any evidence that every single concentration camp guard ever even heard Hitler speak, right?
I would have, but you didn't give me a chance.
Sure I did. I've given you every chance. Every single post you write to me is a chance for you to say "sorry, I misspoke" but instead you've insisted that you're incapable of error, and that somehow I'm the Biggest Douche in the Universe because I wasn't able to read your mind, read the signs, or read anything but the very words you wrote in the text box and hit "submit reply."
There's nothing I'm doing, Oni, that is preventing you from admitting you made a mistake. The only obstacle to that is yourself, and your stubborn refusal to countenance the fact that you're a human being who occasionally makes errors. Just as soon as you're prepared to acknowledge your mistake, and stop pretending like I'm the one who has a problem because you say things that aren't true, we can move on. But we're not going to "drop it" until you stop telling lies.
Next time be nice.
You be nice. I'm not the one spewing misogynistic insults to avoid admitting error. I'm prepared to be just as polite as you're prepared to act. All you have to do is stop lying.
Our government remains democratic whether there is a liberal or conservative at the helm. As in, it is a democracy whether there is a liberal or conservative at the helm.
I'm not talking about the system of government, Oni, which obviously remains the same regardless of what party is in charge. I'm not even talking about liberals or conservatives. I'm talking about Republicans and Democrats. You know, the two-party system? When Republicans run the government that's described as "the Republican government." When Democrats run it it's described as "the Democratic government." That's a different phrase than "Democratic government", which means "government organized as a democracy."
Look, I'm sorry that we have a party called "The Democratic Party", it really does make talking about the government a little confusing. I'm not referring to the system of government we have, I'm talking about the government that we have right now. And so was Loughner.
In this particular case, according to law enforcement that is investgating it, there is currently no connection. That is just a fact.
No, it's not. Law enforcement has not investigated the claims I'm making at all; they've investigated the claim of a connection between Palin and Loughner.
But there never was such a connection nor the claim of such a connection. They've chased a red herring, and you're repeating it. The claim I'm making - Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence - has been investigated by the Department of Homeland Security and found to be true, such that they issued a warning about it back in April of 2009.
There is no hard evidence to support the assertion that Palin's hate speech, the "targets" and right-wing rhetoric indirectly caused this.
But again - neither would there be hard evidence that soap advertising gets people to buy soap, by this standard. That's simply not the applicable standard to apply when we're talking about speech fostering an environment that results in an increase in certain kinds of behavior. That's not a matter of opinion; it's just something for which you have to rely on another type of evidence besides a clear, forensic causal chain between any individual actor and any specific act of speech. Loughner as an individual is irrelevant; the environment that fostered the act of trying to assassinate Rep. Giffords is what is relevant. If it hadn't been Loughner at the trigger and Giffords in his sights, it would have been some other shooter, some other victims, some other street corner, on some other day. Loughner's own politics have absolutely zero relevance, here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 01-16-2011 6:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 01-16-2011 9:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 185 (600733)
01-16-2011 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
01-16-2011 6:46 PM


Re: Time for some balance
Many people here in the US believe left-wing rhetoric is also dangerous, especially far left rhetoric.
Ok, but examples of it from the Netherlands - which is a whole different country, perhaps you're aware - aren't evidence for that view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 01-16-2011 6:46 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by onifre, posted 01-16-2011 9:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 104 of 185 (600744)
01-16-2011 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by crashfrog
01-16-2011 7:53 PM


Re: Letters since 2007
If the phrase "promotes violence" isn't meant to refer to the effect whereby violence is increased
Because, things that promote violence , like movies and tv shows, don't actually lead to violence.
there's no reason for anyone to find the promotion of violence any more objectionable than the promotion of flossing or dandruff shampoo.
Do you find movies and tv shows that promote violence objectionable?
But can I market it by saying "promotes penis growth"?
Yes. Who cares about "truthfully," the point is that you can. It also doesn't matter if anyone buys the product, or believes that the product does that, for you to still be able to promote that it does.
And what they mean is "causes an increase in violence", just as "promotes penis growth" means "causes an increase in the size of the penis."
That's the fucking point, that sometimes it doesn't actually do that! Sometimes it DOESN'T cause an increase in violence even though it promotes violence. Movies, tv shows, promote violence, but they don't increase violence in the community.
Islam, promotes violence as a resolution to problems, but it doesn't actually increase violence, so there is no reason to fear muslims. That's my point.
Judaism, promotes violence when it says 'kill the gays', but it doesn't actually increase violence toward gays.
That is the whole point to something promoting violence but not actually contributing to violence!
Similarly, telling your supporters that if they don't like the outcome of an election they should seek "Second Amendment remedies" is an idea that would contribute to violence.
IF IT ACTUALLY DID THAT.
In the case of me suggesting to go out and beat people up, if no one follows me, then me suggesting to go beat someone up did NOT contribute to an increase in violence.
How do I know that? Why, because of all the violence that these speech acts contributed to.
Yes, all of those things could have contributed to violence, but how do you know that this was one of those cases!
If all you're saying is that right-wing rhetoric in general contributes to violence, then yeah, sure, it does. You agreed that left-wing rhetoric contributes to violence, especially far left rhetoric. So both sides contirbute to violence, in general.
The point is, how do we know which side contributed to this particular act of violence, because he was found with far left-wing reading material.
So where is the evidence that right-wing rhetoric specifically, and not both, contributed to this act of violence?
What kind of proof?
It was either Hitler, or the Germans acted on their own.
Sure I did. I've given you every chance. Every single post you write to me is a chance for you to say "sorry, I misspoke" but instead you've insisted that you're incapable of error.
Oh bullshit, man. You jumped down my throat and accused me of not knowing anything about this event. I'm capable of error but not capable of being accused of not knowing something when I do.
At this point though, fuck your sorry.
When Republicans run the government that's described as "the Republican government." When Democrats run it it's described as "the Democratic government."
Ok, I get what context you mean that in.
But let me ask, do you think our current government is democratic, as in, the democrats run it? I know the president is a democrat, but that's just one branch of our government.
The claim I'm making - Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence - has been investigated by the Department of Homeland Security and found to be true, such that they issued a warning about it back in April of 2009
Crash, dude, I don't disagree with this. This is what I meant in the other post that I agree with some of what you are saying. The political arena is sometimes violent. I have never disputed that. And I don't disput that Republican rhetoric contributed to it.
But where is the evidence that Republican murder speech contributed to THIS case? That is the point of this debate. It could very well have been far left political rhetoric from books like Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto. Who knows?
My question continues to be, what are you using as evidence that points to Republican murder speech contributing to THIS particular case?
Many said Palin, the targets and the Tea Party. You even suggested that she apologize. But there is no evidence that links Palin, targets or the Tea Party to Loughner. In fact, all the physical evidence points to left-wing propaganda.
This is the debate. This is the question. Where is the evidence that points to Republican rhetoric contributing?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 7:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 01-18-2011 12:30 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 105 of 185 (600745)
01-16-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
01-16-2011 7:56 PM


Re: Time for some balance
Ok, but examples of it from the Netherlands - which is a whole different country, perhaps you're aware - aren't evidence for that view.
Really? This blows your entire position that the right is the only one that has dangerous rhetoric!
Huntard said, in his country it's not just the right side that uses dangerous rhetoric. You said, here it is, which is the entire point you're making with Loughner and the evidence. That it could only be from the right because the right is the only one that has dangerous rhetoric.
If you agree that both sides have dangerous rhetoric, then you have lost your entire position.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2011 7:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 01-18-2011 12:12 AM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024