Politicizing the AZ massacre

Still more? Here's a sampler: The progressive climate of hate: An illustrated primer, 2000-2010(Can't you just feel the love?)

And I haven't either. If crash's only point was that it had a negative effect on society, then I would agree with him, which I did.But to imply that their rhetoric contributed specifically to Loughner shooting the congress woman is ALSO dangerous, irresponsible and will have a negative effect on society, because there is no evidence to support that.The ONLY evidence there is, suggests that far left-wing propaganda (which is what Loughner has been found to have) and his dislike of the government contributed to Loughner shooting the congress woman. And even that would be weak, because it would still be speculation.Until, of course, Loughner opens his mouth and says why he actually did it. For now, it is premature to imply anything else about the Loughner case.- Oni

No, I believe I missed the love.I also missed the definition of "hate speech", which is what I asked for.Please explain what it is, and if it is or is not protected by my favorite amendment.

Not interested enough to bother. Virtually everything is protected except the notorious "Fire!" in a crowded theater.My interest here has been countering the statement by Crash that only the right uses "dangerous rhetoric".I have shown that to be totally incorrect.

Okay. You're just interested enough to use the phrase, but not quite interested enough to say what you think it means.Fair enough. I too have other things to do. I believe I'll go find a creationist using the word "thermodynamics" and ask him what he thinks it means.Perhaps I have a petty mind, but you must admit that I also have a certain amount of harmless fun.

Yes you absolutely did. I was heralding crashfrog on his elucidation of the mass media argument and you directly equated that with logical fallacies of the anti-vaccine movement.Did you not do that? Did you mean something else? What I hear crash saying and what I agree with him on is that the kind of evidence for the kind of causation being suggested is a complete misrepresentation of the claims being made by those who say the rhetoric had something to do with this.What it seems like you are saying we need is evidence like a letter from Laughner to Palin saying, "I'll get on this list right away Sarah starting with Giffords here in Arizona. XOXOX -Jared" in order to prove that Laughner was motivated by Palin. But nobody is making that specific claim!What I see happening in this thread is a repeated failure to understand the point that crashfrog is trying to make despite what I feel are very lucid arguments being put forward by him.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

No, Jazzns, i didn't disagree with that. Message 104
See, I don't disagree with that statement. Then you haven't read the full thread. Lets quote a few things and see if what you claim is true, or if what you claim is what crash eventually, and deceivingly, changed his position to. Message 19
Gifford was subject to violence as a result of the crosshairs.Message 25
Palin's rhetoric incited a crazy person to [murder].Which, btw crash, did you mean to say "shoot" instead of "murder"...? Message 56
So the dots point back to Palin.Message 57
Loughner was influenced by Palin.So now here you come and say this: Aren't they? Isn't that exactly what was being said in all the quotes I provided?That is why I keep asking for the evidence, because the claim was made by CRASH that Palin influenced Loghner, and, that the congress woman being shot was a result of the crosshairs.Do you see that now, Jazzns? What you are reading now to be "crash's point," is the end result of me bashing his argument into the ground until he HAD TO change it to just "Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence."But fuck that! He wants to deceivingly change his position after claiming Palin, and the crosshairs, influenced Loughner, and that the congress woman was shot because of it...well, I don't think so!At least not without HIM clearly, and openly stating that he was wrong in that assumption.At which time, if his only remaining point is that Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence, then I agree with him 100% and have nothing else to debate about in this thread.But I want that fucking admitance to being wrong! ...cause I know it hurts him to have to do so. But thanks for your contribution, Jazzns, I always like to read your PoV. I hope this post corrected any misunderstandings between you and I.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well, then perhaps you should choose your analogies more carefully. If anyone needs a picture with crosshairs on it it would be Jenny McCarthy. Let me be more specific. I don't think anybody is making the claim that it was out of the mouth of Palin straight into the actions of Laughner. But that is not necessary to show that the rhetoric is associated with his actions. It is perhaps straining at gnats but I think crash is rightly claiming more than that. I think maybe you are going too far in claiming that he has shifted because it seems very much that you have too. One of your first replies: seems to imply that you are dismissive of any link. So crash has generalized and you have narrowed in. Maybe you can just attribute that to the debate refining both of your positions. Well, I mean you certainly don't make friends on a board full of skeptically minded people by calling them Jenny McCarthy. I understand your position, but I think you are still asking for evidence disproportionate to the claims.Soldier on.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Fair enough. They can't all be gems, I'm usually baked 85% of the time. I still believe politicians get shot, idiots light themselves on fire. But that position was in direct reference to Palin and the crosshairs influencing Loughner.Believe me, I hate the US political arena for the very reason crash made, their rhetoric is causing a great split in our society. Had he started off with just that point I would have been the first one supporting him.But Palin and the crosshairs influencing Loughner? Na, can't accept that one. At least not without evidence. But this would mean I'm not awesome. Fair enough, and thanks for that assessment.- Oni

Jazzns says: And I also see at the same time a semantic problem with the word "promote". Oni uses it the way I do. You promote your music or your comedy routine or your Irish Spring soap. Then you wait and see what happens. The two things are disconnected. The Later Developments do not and could not change the "promotion".BTW, in regards to whether violence in movies, music, TV is more objectionable than your average TV soap ad - THEY ARE ALL ENORMOUSLY OBJECTIONABLE!! The current leading theory of Advertising business SHOULD DIE DIE DIE DIE! They suck dead donkeys dicks and it is humiliating to find myself paying attention to them for any longer that to Identify & Dismiss, like a delete button.Everyday I get the blues.
Everyday I get assaulted by crass advertising.
Everyday I want to get a AK-47 and visit their home office - BUT for the impracticality of it and the useless gesture it would make.No.The problem IS, as crashfrog has taken some pains to illustrate, the problem is...advertising works.This is a huge indictment on the species we are.
We are STUPID.And because WE ARE STUPID, crash is correct to Nail the Right for their idiotic rapture with guns. Cuz there's idiots out there who respond to the climate.Coyote also brings up some good examples of Idiocy from the left side of the spectrum. Admittedly a lot of his examples are not from people on the left who hold positions of authority within their own ranks. So while the dubious far left may produce horrible pictures of McCain or Bush, that seems to be a lot different than sanctioning holding events to shoot at pictures. But not that much. It is a tragedy.One thing I noticed in Hyroglyphx's political compass thread is how ZERO of us (i was roughly at -6, -6) - NONE, ZIP, NADA of us were above the line in the middle. We seem to all spurn Authoritarian Governments.YES.We have a common ground.The extreme posters, slogans, and stuff like that are all directed against Totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right. We've seen pictures of Bush with the Hitler mustache and pictures of Obama with the Hitler mustache. Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! LOLOLOL Think about this...the one thing that we have instilled over here is the Absolute rejection of Stalin/Hitler/you name it/.Maybe, in a nutshell, the difference between the left and the right in this country boils down to whether Big Multi-International Corporate Business is pushing us further upwards into a totalitarian state MORE than the Fat Bloated Invasive US Government, with its expensive arcane ways of wasting money trying to assuage those on the left with cardboard houses, tax the shit out of people who have worked very hard to become rich and come up with silly cures that are worse than the disease on your tax dollar, and Regulations that take a phonebook to print. They are both pushing upwards towards Totalitarianism. Me - from the left - I think 100% of the Republicans are mere slave lackeys of Big Business and even as much as 95-98% of the Democrats are also in the pockets of Big Business. So it is no wonder why I am on the left. I'd like to hear Coyote give voice to the other side, in regards to how dominant Big Business is and whether Big Business cares about Small Businesses.Let's take a deep breath and try work work towards a solution that clearly is not creeping up to that horrible Stalin-Hitler land.We obviously have a lot in common.Maybe we should open a thread: "Suggestions for making a government avoid Totalitarianism" or whatnot. There are at least 2 major hurdles, and if I stop typing, I'm sure many more, but the STUPID in us to be manipulated by Advertising IS a major threat to avoiding totalitarianism, along with the desire of huge vast amounts of us just want to be left the fuck alone, makes this a Daunting Task. Coyote will push for Personal Responsibility, and yes, this is valid. We do not want Welfare Cadillacs...because for the few instances of that, perhaps coupled with the other tawdry symbols of success in the crime-ridden underground city, such a flaunting of the system (The System) is ludicrous. Personal responsibility is very important. Without it nothing will happen. Hyro's test is cute. But it is flawed by the way the questions are posed. Why is the lower left the comfy green color?I want the lucky Blue Croquet ball.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Is Oni conceding?: I am striving for 100%, but must admit to slips, so I'm more in the 94% category.Hopefully I can raise it another percent or 2 by the end of this evening.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Either you're not understanding the point being made or you're dishonestly equivocating on the term "promote", which means both "to present for buyer acceptance though advertising or publicity" and "to help bring into being; to contribute to the growth or prosperty of".People don't say "promotes violence" like they say "promote a band". Speech that is described as "promotes violence" is understood to be accused of actually causing an increase in violence; that's why people object to it. If speech that "promoted violence" had no effect on violence, there would be nothing objectionable about it.The word "promote" in "promotes violence" means "to contribute to the growth of", not "to present for buyer acceptance through advertising or publicity." See, here's where you're conflating two definitions, again. I'm not talking about products that are promoted, I'm talking about products that promote.Do you understand the difference? (This is an important question and your next reply to me should answer it, please.) All of your difficulties in this discussion are based on the fact that you don't appear to understand the difference between "contribute to the growth of" and "present for buyer acceptance", which are two very different definitions of the word "promote." You're absolutely right. Similarly, we should recognize that the increase in right-wing violence directed against Democrats, minorities, and government employees is a function of unbalanced, violent people doing violent things and the creation of an rhetorical environment where violence is repeatedly invoked and approved of against the political enemies of the right-wing. Well, it's not much of an apology but it's roughly the level of maturity you usually evince. Why not simply admit to your mistake and apologize for how you've needlessly dragged this on? Companies regularly do this because there are few if any metrics to assess ad effectiveness beyond correlating ad penetration with aggregate purchasing. They can't get in your head, Oni; they can't know what ads you saw and why you bought what you bought.The standard of evidence you're demanding is unnecessary, which is good because it's impossible. I mean you yourself identified in the Hitler example that we can't tell which Nazis were oppressing Jews because they were incited to do so by Hitler, and which were doing so because Nazism provided an outlet for their own pre-existing antisemitism. But even so it's ridiculous to suggest that Hitler's anti-Jew oratory, which aired throughout Germany and the rest of Europe, didn't have an inciting effect on levels of violence against Jews. Even if we can't find a single individual who we can prove killed Jews just because Hitler said to. And you would answer that direct evidence was an impossibility, but the indirect evidence was sufficient to be convincing. Just as it is in this case. Oh, come on. We all know what she meant by "consequences" - she meant someone engaging in politically-motivated violence. To her grave misfortune she was proven absolutely correct. As, unfortunately, was I.

No, you've not show anything but examples of intemperate rhetoric from a fringe that even the far left disavows.Which mainstream conservatives have disavowed Rush Limbaugh, Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, and other mainstream conservative figures who have engaged in this type of murder speech?I mean so far your most significant example is Alan Hivisi, but Hivisi apologized for and retracted his statements. When did Sarah Palin apologize for putting a crosshairs on Giffords? (She did not; in fact she simply lied about having done so.) When did Sharon Angle apologize for inviting conservatives to reverse electoral outcomes with armed insurrection? Be specific.Do you just not understand the difference in significance between Sarah Palin, who your party advances as a credible candidate to be President of the United States, and a motley collection of college radicals?

OK, how about these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkUiMo5tZlg

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsHB7Hjpi4

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGhoYT84Jeg&feature=playe...

Seems to be a lot of "leftist fringe" out there, eh?

"He's going to explode." That's the offending phrase? Not a reference to violence, a reference to temper. Bill Maher is a libertarian, not a leftist. Sandra Bernhard? There's not even a need to reply to that. If that's the case why can't you seem to find any of it? If "both sides do it" why is Sandra Bernhard the best you're able to muster? And if the left is just as bad, where was all the political violence during Bush's term? Where were the assassination attempts? Where were the bombings? Why did death threats against Congresspeople only rise in 2009, when Obama and the Democrats took office?Why are we finding bombs at Martin Luther King Jr. parades and not at Tea Parties? Why don't you see loaded AK-47's at the same rallies you saw all those supposed "kill Bush" signs?How does "both sides do it" explain the general right-wing tenor of the increase in violence? Why are the only domestic leftist terrorists you've ever heard of a group that was last heard from in the 60's and whose only victims were their own members?