Reactions to the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)

[jrrrrrrr]

They are a left-wing party, and they have been calling American citizens concerned about the reach and scope of government Nazis, and using a homophobic slur (teabagger) ad nauseum.

Actually, "teabagger" was a word that Fox News used to describe them back when they were still pretending it was a grassroots movement. You have nobody to blame but your own party for that. And teabagging is hardly a homophobic slur, straight people teabag each other all the time.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

If you were alive in 1964 you would have said the same things about MLK that you say today about all other liberals...if not, worse because it would have been more socially acceptable to your peers. Don't even pretend like you're a champion of equality, there are more than enough posts in this subforum alone that I could pull up and show your true ideology.

The Nazis were the National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were and are a left-wing movement dominated by state control over the people.

And you seriously think that the Nazis were left-leaning just because their name has "socialist" in it.

You have no credibility. You live in a historical context that is purposefully revised.

Pot, meet kettle.

How much are we willing to use the threat of imprisonment to implement the new zeal for a "civil discourse," a discourse now toxified primarily by the media and its cultural allies in Hollywood?

Who is this "we" and who is threatening to put people in prison? You are literally inventing an enemy here.

It is an understood part of the American framework that The Second Amendment exists for a reason. As I insinuate in the signature of my every post, the Second Amendment exists because without it the First is not enforcable. Everyone in America wants to live under the protections of the First Amendment rather than excercise the responsibility inherent in the Second.

That's funny, I always thought it was an understood part of the American framework that the second amendment exists to form a well regulated militia for the security of the state (surprise!, there's a first half of that amendment!), not to threaten people whose ideology you can't be bothered to sympathize with. "I'm sick of these liberals" is not an acceptable excuse to threaten people with guns whether or not the second amendment exists.

The calls to chill speech are an affront to the First Amendment.

No, they are an affront to fucking lunatics who would encourage others to commit heinous acts of violence to further their own political agenda. Asking people to shut up and stop telling people to murder those who disagree is a lot different than the Orwellian nightmare that you seem to think this country is in.

 

[Arch]

Congratulations, you successfully ruined a topic.

 

[Deck Knight]

Already addressed this, please pay attention:

First of all, no one was advocating any sort of imprisonment, and no one was advocating the isolation of public figures who "question the liberal narrative". The desire for more civil political discourse is not a part of some massive liberal conspiracy. If you can't post without erecting and bashing several strawman arguments, just keep out of the discussion.

I'm not too worried about America because again, we have the protections of the First Amendment. I would be worried if we were to take a page from Canada however and start having Human Rights Commissions policing "hate speech."

I didn't provide you the link because Evan PM'd us and asked us to cut out "[political party] is responsible for the violence" shit. I have no idea why you're bringing it up again, but hey, as long as you we don't go on a tangent again I don't mind indulging you:

Here's something Limbaugh said: "This is about chaos. This is why it's called Operation Chaos! It's not called Operation Save Hillary. It's not called Operation Nominate Obama. It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategy, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that."

So Rush Limbaugh just thought the dream scenario of going through the entirely legal process of changing party affiliation to vote in Democratic primaries would be for the hard left Democrats to do the stuff they did in Chicago 1968? He didn't tell anyone to burn cars, protest, or riot, he was noting that was what happened in 1968, and Democrats being Democrats it might happen again, and in his analysis that implosion would be the best thing, politically, for America's long-term future. But it was entirely dependent on a group of people not in Rush Limbaughs sphere of influence reacting to the mere thought Rush Limbaugh was attempting to tamper with the primary process through entirely legal, non-violent means and then responding with violence at their own convention in return.

There are quite a few more equally insane quotes, all revolving around Operation Chaos. Oh yeah, that reminds me, he had an initiative called fucking "Operation Chaos"! That's not even a subtle attempt to incite violence!

Our site is run by chaos. Clearly we are a harbinger of violence and rioting, driven by our very leader chaos to do mad acts of insanity!

As for Palin, we already discussed this, she said things like "don't retreat, reload", in addition to fearmongering about how the federal government is "coming to take your guns"; I don't think I need to point out why gun metaphors directed at the republican base is a bad thing.

Because the Democratic base is too stupid to get them? Honestly FlareBlitz can you get over your hatred of all things republican and realize for a moment you are the one with the most insulting, hyperbolic rhetoric? You are the one trying to inflate Rush Limbaugh's call in 2008 to change your party affiliation to vote in the Democratic primaries into an endorsement of car burning and rioting.

I'd like to emphasize once again that this is tangential, the topic is about whether the political climate is too heated and what, if anything, we should do about that. I merely posted it for posterity, since you actively called me out and all...

You are adding to the heat of the rhetoric by insinuating 50% of the country's population is incapable of understanding gun metaphors applied to politics. When will you get that? You and your friends calling for "civil discourse" never pass up an opportunity to insult the intelligence of your political opponents. Never has any liberal hesitated to call me a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe. Never has any liberal hesitated not to insult me on irc, and now they care about civil discourse? What a riot (OH FUCK FLAREBLITZ I SAID RIOT! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!)

I am gennuinely not sure what you're trying to say here, and I don't even see how it's relevant to what we're talking about. I'm quoting it because I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring parts of your post, but really, this is completely incoherent.

You must be a Republican because I was talking about the responsible duty of gun ownership in its historical context. Doing so was apparently a bad thing, seeing as it flew over your head for obvious reasons which only you in your infinite knowledge of the Republican base would understand.

I don't ever recall arguing that "no man is ever responsible for their actions", and implying that I did is blatant misrepresentation. It would be like me saying "yeah deck knight here thinks that nothing and no one in society has any influence on anyone else, ever, he obviously failed every sociology and psychology course he ever took". Don't be That Guy, if you're going to debate, debate the points I posted, not the ones you made up.

Your entire insinuation was that heated political rhetoric caused a deranged person to act. If they were "egged on" that person is responsible. Or do you not remember:

See, now we're getting somewhere. My entire point is that people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh enable these people by feeding into their violent fantasies and implicitly encouraging the violent overthrow of people he or she disagrees with. And it's not even particularly subtle, I mean, you have them actively calling for "the tree of liberty to be watered", how is that justifiable?

My counterpoint is that every political figure does this. Including President Barack Obama and liberals in the press. Except whenever somebody deranged supposedly acts on it, the first response of pundits is to blame Republicans who can't get gun metaphors, then suggest we all calm down. They have no intent of calming down. They want to live with the double-standard of "incendiary rhetoric for me, no incendiary rhetoric for thee." I will believe Keith Olbermann gives a flying fuck about civil discourse when he discontinues "Worst Person in the World." His show is much more incendiary than anything I have ever heard on Talk Radio, and yet when liberals advance things like "The Fairness Doctrine" it invariably always targets media outlets liberal thought does poorly in.


Jrrrr: Are you really so desperate that you have to rearrange the posts in the thread to make it look like I attacked latios? He asked if my quote about praying for families was a veiled attack on atheists. I said it was not in the more casual manner "a forum" is supposed to encourage. Thank you for trying to reinvent Cong stuffiness.

If you guys are really committed to "civil discourse," you'll stop pretending your every belief is the only morally correct one and that every positive historical figure agreed with you. If you seriously think Martin Luther King Jr., a pro-life, Republican, deeply Christian reverend has more in common with the Democratic Party of today than the Republican Party of which he was part, you are entiled to your belief but please, please allow me to confuse you with the facts.

If you disagree and say "The Democratic and Republican Parties have changed over time" please explain to me why there are Democrats in their 90's who said their grandparents and parents voted Democrat, they vote Democrat, and their children and grandchildren should vote Democrat too. Platforms do change over time, but the Republican Party was founded as the abolitionist party in America, and all of the Democratic Party's platforms in recent history have changed over time to move ever further away from the Catholic working class JFK Democrat of the time.

The insinuation a man who dreamed that one day black and white children would hold hands together and sing songs together and pray in harmony has anything in common with Jeremiah "a world in need fueled by white man's greed" Wright is insulting to his memory.

 

[monkfish]

does anyone have a link to the jon stewart video that is available outside the USA?

also does anyone else want to share my popcorn

 

[Hipmonlee]

I could watch Firestorm's USA link - did you try that one?

Have a nice day.

 

[FlareBlitz]

He didn't tell anyone to burn cars, protest, or riot, he was noting that was what happened in 1968, and Democrats being Democrats it might happen again, and in his analysis that implosion would be the best thing, politically, for America's long-term future. But it was entirely dependent on a group of people not in Rush Limbaughs sphere of influence reacting to the mere thought Rush Limbaugh was attempting to tamper with the primary process through entirely legal, non-violent means and then responding with violence at their own convention in return.

Wait. Let me get this summarize this whole thing real quick. I gave you a direct quote from Rush Limbaugh, who was talking about Operation Chaos, the stated goal of which was to provoke the Democrats into recreating one of the most violent political protests in American history. Let's actually ignore the utterly immoral actions he was advocating (i.e. sabotaging the Democratic convention through disingenuous votes, which you hilariously defend as "perfectly legal guys, really!") and simply focus on that part. You're saying that his "dream" to cause massive riots in the streets is not violent rhetoric? No matter how you spin it, this just makes you seem like you don't know when to admit your errors. Rush Limbaugh engages in violent rhetoric. Period. I don't want to discuss this again because it is obviously tangential, so I'll just leave it at that.

You are adding to the heat of the rhetoric by insinuating 50% of the country's population is incapable of understanding gun metaphors applied to politics.

Not what I said. We talked about this strawman thing.

As I stated in my earlier post, the Republican party is indeed infamous for its fringe psychotic gun nuts (key word there being "fringe"). Directing gun metaphors when you know your base has people that will take them seriously is a very bad idea. It's like when someone posts on a forum about how they're planning on killing themselves and someone else posts "hahaha yeah go ahead and set up a webcam too lolololol". 99.99% of the time nothing bad will happen, but that does not mean it's a good idea!

When will you get that? You and your friends calling for "civil discourse" never pass up an opportunity to insult the intelligence of your political opponents. Never has any liberal hesitated to call me a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe. Never has any liberal hesitated not to insult me on irc, and now they care about civil discourse?

Well, if you could stop being a bigot, that would probably stop calling you those names...
(And yes, seeking to deny homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of them being homosexual is indeed bigotry)

Anyway, you seem to be missing the point. People on IRC are not your leaders, role models, or authority figures. Politicians and certain talk show/radio hosts are. That is a highly relevant difference.

You must be a Republican because I was talking about the responsible duty of gun ownership in its historical context. Doing so was apparently a bad thing, seeing as it flew over your head for obvious reasons which only you in your infinite knowledge of the Republican base would understand.

My god you're bad at sarcasm, please stop using it.
And yes, I know you were talking about gun ownership, hence me saying "and I don't even see how it's relevant to what we're talking about." Because I don't. I was kind of hoping you had a broader point that was related to the issue of violent political rhetoric, but it seems that that you just like throwing out a bunch of words in the hopes that some of them will stick...

Your entire insinuation was that heated political rhetoric caused a deranged person to act. If they were "egged on" that person is responsible. Or do you not remember:

And that is still my implication. Except that's not what you said. You said "hurrr, you're saying that no one is responsible for their own actions!", which is not really the same as "you're saying that violent political rhetoric can cause mentally unstable people to tip over the edge!"

My counterpoint is that every political figure does this. Including President Barack Obama and liberals in the press. Except whenever somebody deranged supposedly acts on it, the first response of pundits is to blame Republicans who can't get gun metaphors, then suggest we all calm down. They have no intent of calming down. They want to live with the double-standard of "incendiary rhetoric for me, no incendiary rhetoric for thee." I will believe Keith Olbermann gives a flying fuck about civil discourse when he discontinues "Worst Person in the World." His show is much more incendiary than anything I have ever heard on Talk Radio, and yet when liberals advance things like "The Fairness Doctrine" it invariably always targets media outlets liberal thought does poorly in.

I don't care if every political figure does it. They should all stop. Remember, this isn't about party lines. That said...you mention Olbermann, who suspended his Worst Person in the World segment for several weeks after Jon Stewart's speech, and whose segment is now noticeably more moderate. How did conservative pundits react to Jon Stewart's bipartisan call for moderation?

But regardless of all that, sure, let's assume that both parties are equally complicit in violent rhetoric. What is your proposed solution? And please remember that no one thus far has advocated any sort of legal intervention in this issue, so stop throwing in random mentions to examples of regulation you feel are "unfair" or whatever.

There were several really amusing things in your reply to jrrr that I want to address, but I'll let him take a crack at it first.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Our site is run by chaos. Clearly we are a harbinger of violence and rioting, driven by our very leader chaos to do mad acts of insanity!

I'm sure that's exactly what Limbaugh meant when he said he wanted chaos. You nailed it.

I will believe Keith Olbermann gives a flying fuck about civil discourse when he discontinues "Worst Person in the World." His show is much more incendiary than anything I have ever heard on Talk Radio, and yet when liberals advance things like "The Fairness Doctrine" it invariably always targets media outlets liberal thought does poorly in.

Oh man, someone got called the worst person in the world by someone on TV who you probably don't even watch. That is so comparable to the leaders of a political party openly calling for executions of the other side.

Jrrrr: Are you really so desperate that you have to rearrange the posts in the thread to make it look like I attacked latios? He asked if my quote about praying for families was a veiled attack on atheists. I said it was not in the more casual manner "a forum" is supposed to encourage. Thank you for trying to reinvent Cong stuffiness.

Your line about atheism seemed inflammatory in a topic where you led off by implying that atheists have no conscience because they don't pray. Especially since the obvious argument is that atheists require more of a conscience because we don't believe that we get an eternal blissful afterlife, so we need to value this life even more.

If you guys are really committed to "civil discourse," you'll stop pretending your every belief is the only morally correct one and that every positive historical figure agreed with you. If you seriously think Martin Luther King Jr., a pro-life, Republican, deeply Christian reverend has more in common with the Democratic Party of today than the Republican Party of which he was part, you are entiled to your belief but please, please allow me to confuse you with the facts.

King advocated non-violence as his most sacred philosophical principle. You are advocating threatening political figures with guns because they are liberals.

King fought to end racial segregation. You believe that businesses deserve the right to discriminate.

King fought for equality and tolerance. You have explicitly stated that homosexuals are a "societal cancer" and that they do not deserve the same rights afforded to their heterosexual counterparts.

King fought for labor rights of the lower and middle classes. You...well, you don't.

King thought that blacks deserved compensation for being wronged historically. I've never seen you post directly on this but I think it's safe to assume you don't agree with him.

King's main opposition to the Vietnam War was because it took resources away from social welfare programs. You are pro-war and anti-social welfare.

You can sit here and tell me what party he voted for all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that his views and philosophy are vastly different than the current GOP rhetoric. I find it hilarious that you are trying to say "stop associating this violent person with Republicans!" and then go on to say "start associating this great person with Republicans!". The cognitive dissonance in your posts impresses me.

 

[vonFiedler]

Your line about atheism seemed inflammatory in a topic where you led off by implying that atheists have no conscience because they don't pray.

Now you're just being paranoid.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Politicians do have a responsibility to remain calm and non-violent in their rhetoric.

I can just say, "In my opinion, they have no such moral responsibility." And the rest of your post (and any further discussion really) becomes irrelevant (rather, the discussion ends there unresolved).

Arguing on moral grounds, or trying to assign ethical responsibility, becomes completely subjective frankly. In my opinion, the actions of a free individual are 100% his own responsibility.

I would only start to place responsibility on the "commander" of a crime when the "follower" is carrying out specific instructions on command.

 

[FlareBlitz]

I can just say, "In my opinion, they have no such moral responsibility." And the rest of your post (and any further discussion really) becomes irrelevant (rather, the discussion ends there unresolved).

Arguing on moral grounds, or trying to assign ethical responsibility, becomes completely subjective frankly. In my opinion, the actions of a free individual are 100% his own responsibility.

I would only start to place responsibility on the "commander" of a crime when the "follower" is carrying out specific instructions on command.

First, thank you for taking this discussion in a more interesting direction.

There are a few points of contention here:

1) Obviously, I do believe moral responsibility is a bit more gray than you seem to assert, although perhaps not in the way you may expect. I believe that people's actions are fundamentally a product of their genetics and environment; the "genetics" component here would be what most people call "free will", and the environment component is what is under discussion. I believe that any aspect of the environment which causes a person to act in a certain way bears some responsibility for the consequences of those actions (albeit normally this is quite trivial/non-existent). If you were to spread rumours that person A said something hateful about person B's mother, and person B ended up assaulting person A...person B would bear the brunt of the responsibility for his action, but I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that you do not bear some responsibility for the events.

2) You mention "the actions of a free individual", but we need to take into account that this person was likely mentally ill (and thus the effects of violent propaganda may be more pronounced).

3) Even discounting a moral perspective and looking at it purely from a utilitarian perspective...if someone has the opportunity to reduce crime at little or no cost to themselves, should they not take it?

 

[Chou Toshio]

No prob FlareBlitz. :D

First, thank you for taking this discussion in a more interesting direction.

There are a few points of contention here:

1) Obviously, I do believe moral responsibility is a bit more gray than you seem to assert, although perhaps not in the way you may expect. I believe that people's actions are fundamentally a product of their genetics and environment; the "genetics" component here would be what most people call "free will", and the environment component is what is under discussion. I believe that any aspect of the environment which causes a person to act in a certain way bears some responsibility for the consequences of those actions (albeit normally this is quite trivial/non-existent). If you were to spread rumours that person A said something hateful about person B's mother, and person B ended up assaulting person A...person B would bear the brunt of the responsibility for his action, but I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that you do not bear some responsibility for the events.

Yeah, you bear responsibility-- the responsibility for the wrong you commited of "lying," again that's being responsible/accountable for your own actions, not others'. You would be tried for and punished for the lie, not the assault. Now if you were telling the truth, then there's nothing at all you ought to be punished for.

You are accountable for your actions, which include the actions of using words like "attack" of "fist" in your campaign speech, but I am saying that imo, using such words is completely without moral ramifications, and 100% a-ok. He has to be held responsible for using a metaphor-- oh wait, there's no punishment for that. Ok, moving along. So, basically that accountability is moot under my ethical understanding.

2) You mention "the actions of a free individual", but we need to take into account that this person was likely mentally ill (and thus the effects of violent propaganda may be more pronounced).

That just means person x cannot be held accountable for his actions due to metal illness. Just because he is not responsible for his actions does not inherently imply someone else is. Even if someone were responsible, it would be his caretaker/guardian who didn't watch him. If a child commits a crime, the parent is responsible, not Saturday cartoon Y.

That has no connection to me, because whether he is or is not accountable for his actions, I am certainly not accountable for them.

3) Even discounting a moral perspective and looking at it purely from a utilitarian perspective...if someone has the opportunity to reduce crime at little or no cost to themselves, should they not take it?

But if you are not using moral argument, and only using utilitarian, than the only thing that matter's is the utilitarian value of the individual.

Whatever the utilitarian value of my running my campaign with method Y has or doesn't have to person X means nothing to me. If I have no moral obligation, than I have every right to use the campaign method I perceive as having the highest chance for success.

You can argue about what actually is the best method, but that is a completely irrelevant argument imo.

 

[DM]

does anyone have a link to the jon stewart video that is available outside the USA?

also does anyone else want to share my popcorn

I fucking posted it on the last fucking page in a post no one fucking read

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3243000&postcount=71

 

[DM]

oh man this new forum is so good already

I can't wait to see what it will look like in three weeks

 

[WaterBomb]

I keep confusing Deck Knight and FlareBlitz's posts because of their similar avatars.

Also agreeing with DM. This is insanity!

 

[Harlock]

Hello, first post on the site (been a lurker for a very long time though). Just wanted to say to ignore everything Deck Knight said as well as the ensuing rhetoric that came afterward. I do not know Deck Knight personally, he is in no way my enemy, but I disagree with just about everything he has said.

Anyways, the reason for my post is not to talk about my disagreements with what has been said, nor was this topic ever supposed to be about which side is more to blame. Instead, I think everyone needs to watch this as Jon Stewart says it best. Yes, I know the link has been posted before, but I think it is very important that everyone watch before commenting here.

Also, if you don't already, watch other episodes of the show. Jon is easily one of the smartest-and sanest-people on TV.

 

[Nix_Hex]

P.S. I like how the thread title refers to an alleged "assassination" yet we are told not to politicize it. Were the people killed in the shooting assassinated, or were they just flat out murdered like us mere mortals? I need not mention the number of fallacies involved in equating current day political parties to their former entities.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Hello, first post on the site (been a lurker for a very long time though). Just wanted to say to ignore everything Deck Knight said as well as the ensuing rhetoric that came afterward. I do not know Deck Knight personally, he is in no way my enemy, but I disagree with just about everything he has said.

Anyways, the reason for my post is not to talk about my disagreements with what has been said, nor was this topic ever supposed to be about which side is more to blame. Instead, I think everyone needs to watch this as Jon Stewart says it best. Yes, I know the link has been posted before, but I think it is very important that everyone watch before commenting here.

Also, if you don't already, watch other episodes of the show. Jon is easily one of the smartest-and sanest-people on TV.

And you said exactly . . . nothing? "Please watch this TV show since I can't argue my own points myself." Weak man . . . weak . . .

If you're going to post in a semi-serious thread saying you disagree with one of the leaders of the discussion, you ought to at least post some form of intelligible argument, otherwise no one should take you seriously. Also great fist post lol

 

[Hipmonlee]

I do not know Deck Knight personally, he is in no way my enemy, but I disagree with just about everything he has said.

Welcome to the forums, I think you will fit in here nicely.

Have a nice day.

 

[Harlock]

Sigh, the point of my post was missed entirely. I was just trying to say that the point of this thread shouldn't be about who is more to blame. If I offended anyone, I apologize.

Seriously, can this topic not be about insulting one another?

 

[chocolate-kipp]

Didn't you just insult Deck Knight? O_o

 

[WaterBomb]

Also, if you don't already, watch other episodes of the show. Jon is easily one of the smartest-and sanest-liberals on TV.

Fixed.

 

[Harlock]

Didn't you just insult Deck Knight? O_o

By saying I disagree with him? That is insulting him? Again, like I just said, if Deck Knight-or anyone else for that matter-found what I said insulting, I apologize. That was not the point of my post.

Please, could we move this topic away from pointless bickering and use this thread to just reflect on what happened last weekend.

 

[popemobile]

Didn't you just insult Deck Knight? O_o

to be fair, that's not really a big deal

 

[cim]

pro tip: Hip was not being sarcastic

 

[Obsessed]

you ought to at least post some form of intelligible argument, otherwise no one should take you seriously.

Shouldn't this also apply to Deck Knight?

http://instantrimshot.com/