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

[Deck Knight]

Deck Knight, you did a marvelous job of not actually addressing any of FlareBlitz's points. He was comparing the current rhetoric of the Democratic party with that of the Republicans and teabaggers. Rhetoric, not action. Contemporary, not historical. At any rate, the Democratic Party is not a left-wing party. They are not a social democratic party. They are certainly not a revolutionary socialist party, a Marxist-Leninist vanguard, or whatever else Barack Obama might signify in your paranoid fantasies. Liberalism is at its most radical a very moderate left-wing political philosophy. In practice it falls in the center to center-right of the political spectrum. That's why I have little time for it! Those considerations alone would render your post irrelevant. Fortunately, it also has the virtue (?) of being inaccurate and, shall we say, highly selective!

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. SEIU thugs broke off the finger of an African American tea partier who was just selling stickers. Every time there was violence at a Tea Party event, SEIU thugs were present inciting it. They have demonized all of their opponents.

But if you really want to play this whole "let's compare the body counts of left-wing and right-wing terrorism in the United States" game, you are leaving out, to take a few examples off the top of my head, bombed abortion clinics and the assassination of abortion doctors; the militia movement (Gordan Kahl, Timothy McVeigh); the KKK and Black Legion; white separatist, Christian nationalist, neo-Nazi, and other hate groups; death threats and acts of vandalism against elected officials in recent months, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention that, historically, pretty much every major explicitly pacifist and nonviolent movement has been at root a left-wing movement. In the U.S. context, MLK Jr. is the most obvious example. (Dorothy Day's Catholic Workers movement can be a bit difficult to classify, given that Distributism has its basis in what are essentially right-wing solutions to wealth inequality. Right-wing in that they defend the institution of private property.) I mean, really, stop grasping at straws here. No one is claiming that political violence, or even "incendiary rhetoric," is exclusively right-wing and conservative. It's just much more common among right-wing populists and American conservatives than among liberals. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of mainstream liberalism is a certain fetishism for "civil discourse" (see Habermas, Obama). That's why people such as yourself are able to troll liberals so easily with (intentionally borderline) racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever comments and general vitriol. The best they can offer in response is a few caustic remarks and snarky jokes, a level-headed rebuttal, and a plea for civility, when it'd probably be a more efficient use of time just to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Hey Luduan.

The KKK was a Democrat originated organization. Robert C. Byrd was the last remaining member of the Klan in congress until his death.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. The Republican Party was the first platform for African Americans. The Republican Party advanced and supported civil rights legislation and the Democratic Party stonewalled all of it until 1964 when they were dragged kicking and screaming to it, after decades of abolistionists in the Republican Party brought it about. Republicans as a percentage of their party voted in greater support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Abortion clinic bombings have been in total of about seven. Pro-life groups condemn EVERY act of violence against the clinics and their workers.

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 I still remember you backpedalling and making excuses for the Hamas Charter which called for the violent extermination of Israel.

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

You also conveniently left out Mao and Stalin in your body count. Why was that? There is no comparison Luduan.

 

[iDunno]

I found Jared Lee Loughner's Youtube account and saw a couple of his videos. It is pretty much just nonsensical anti-government ramblings.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

This is also a channel that features some comments by Loughner on its wall.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Starhitshnaz
Apparently he's starting a new currency system. Whouda thunk it.

EDIT: And one of his favorite books was Mein Kampf, but I'm not judging that due to the fact that I haven't read it and therefore don't really know why he liked it.
EDIT: Oh and apparently the video on Starhitshnaz's account is off him burning the American flag.

 

[lati0s]

The KKK was a Democrat originated organization. Robert C. Byrd was the last remaining member of the Klan in congress until his death.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. The Republican Party was the first platform for African Americans. The Republican Party advanced and supported civil rights legislation and the Democratic Party stonewalled all of it until 1964 when they were dragged kicking and screaming to it, after decades of abolistionists in the Republican Party brought it about. Republicans as a percentage of their party voted in greater support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Republican and Democrat have changed meaning through history.

 

[Mentlegen]

It was the other team's fault! I swear!

Thats about all I can contribute to this conversation, because it has ceased being intelligible. In fact, it never was intelligible. This is one of those subjects that just needs to be left alone.

 

[NinjaMoth]

Its tragic that this has happened but the root of the cause is that in the US guns are too easy to obtain. If that was solved we wont need to contemplate incidents such as this as often would we?

 

[Luduan]

You can start by giving me exact, specific statements by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin inciting people to do violence

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

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. SEIU thugs broke off the finger of an African American tea partier who was just selling stickers. They have demonized all of their opponents.

The notion that Democrats are leftists is laughable and does nothing but reveal your complete ignorance of political philosophy. A little hint: leftists are anti-capitalist.

The KKK was a Democrat originated organization. Robert C. Byrd was the last remaining member of the Klan in congress until his death.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. The Republican Party was the first platform for African Americans. The Republican Party advanced and supported civil rights legislation and the Democratic Party stonewalled all of it until 1964 when they were dragged kicking and screaming to it, after decades of abolistionists in the Republican Party brought it about. Republicans as a percentage of their party voted in greater support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hey, speaking of ripping things out of a historical context!

If MLK were alive today you would probably be comparing him to Jeremiah Wright.

Abortion clinic bombings have been in total of about seven. Pro-life groups condemn EVERY act of violence against the clinics and their workers.

Ok?

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.

Nazis were not socialists. Socialists do not generally support ethnic cleansing, banning of labor unions, jailing of communists, establishment of a corporatist state, etc. Fascism is right-wing. This is seriously not even a fucking question.

Also, I never mentioned Nazi Germany. You will note that I explicitly and deliberately limited myself to the context of the United States. Modern neo-nazi and white supremacist groups are undebatably right-wing.

And I still remember you backpedalling and making excuses for the Hamas Charter which called for the violent extermination of Israel.

I said Hamas has been willing to negotiate with Israel and did not break the ceasefire. I also mentioned that they are the elected government of Gaza. I do not support "the violent extermination of Israel," although I think that Palestinians have a hell of a lot more reason to resort to violent action than a bunch of privileged petty-bourgeois whites and businessmen upset that more people can have access to health care.

You also conveniently left out Mao and Stalin in your body count. Why was that? There is no comparison Luduan.

Mao and Stalin were not Americans.

 

[Firestorm]

Glad to see you keeping your posts free of political agendas after preaching, Deck Knight.

Your boy, if he's serious (he's on a comedy network, I still struggle to think that he's being 100% serious in his speeches), is singing music to my ears.

He may be on The Comedy Network / Comedy Central but he's very genuine.

 

[v]

Just gonna say that it is hilarious that you guys are really discussing which side of the political spectrum has a higher body count in a thread about an attack on an Arizona Congresswoman.

 

[doomvendingmachine]

I just skimmed, so excuse me if I missed something, but the Nazis were in NO WAY socialists. Just because the Chinese call themselves The People's Republic of China doesn't make them anymore an actual republic.

 

[evan]

Okay, I am going to go ahead and make this public instead of private:

This thread is not for discussing which political party has "more blood on their hands."

a) This thread is about the attempted assassination on Gabrielle Giffords and a more reasonable, applicable, and less batshit insane conversation can be found in perhaps the political atmosphere and whether or not we should even be talking about any issues that have arisen from the attack.
b) The discussion on which political party has more blood on their hands can only lead to heated partisan bickering which will likely result in posts that could be infracted (and i am a former firemod i don't want to do that).
c) The conversation as it stands now is completely off from the original topic and bears only a passing resemblance to it.

Thanks,
a forum moderator
evan

 

[Luduan]

By the way, I think it should be noted that the Daily Kos image in the OP is a photoshopped screenshot that has been virally reproduced from the conservative blog on which it originally appeared. The bullseye and photo of Giffords are not present anywhere in the original. That makes this even more of a farce. As though a clear and not particularly violent metaphor from a three-year old DailyKos blog post (for which the author later apologized!) is equivalent to Glenn Beck's wondering aloud whether he could successfully kill Michael Moore or his fantasizing about Obama being decapitated in India. It's just dishonest concern-trolling. The heated and violent political rhetoric in this country (see the link I provided in my last post) cannot be separated from incidents like this. The question is not whether this particular shooter was politically motivated. It is a question of the current political climate, and I fully agree with Glen, evan, akuchi, FlareBlitz, et al about this. And it should be remember that this is not the only attack against Congresspeople in recent times.

 

[FlareBlitz]

Okay. I'm just going to copy and paste the part of my previous post that's relevant to the discussion, and try to stay on track.

With that out of the way, I don't think analyzing the possible causes of this tragedy demeans the lives of the victims in any way. Deck Knight mentions in the OP that people should be "praying for the families of the dead", when that would just be a feel-good media circlejerk that doesn't accomplish anything. I feel for the victims and I absolutely advocate useful forms of support (like donations or sending them goodwill cards or whatever), but I see no issue with drawing media attention to the absolutely batshit insane propaganda being employed in politics today and do something about that so that shit like this doesn't happen again in the future. That's actually productive and useful. I don't even care if both parties are equally complicit in this, it should not be acceptable for anyone to say things like that or to use assassination related imagery. Especially for a party that is infamous for its fringe, borderline psychotic gun nuts.

It's very likely that the individual who did this was mentally compromised, so it's not like I'm claiming that political propaganda turns normal people into sleeper agents. What I am saying is that this sort of political climate definitely directs the attentions of those who are innately more violent towards politics, and it feeds that violent inclination with subconscious justification, until they do something like try to assassinate leaders or bomb abortion clinics or whatever else.

The summary of my position:

1) I don't think this discussion "disrespects" the dead or wounded, in fact talking about the political atmosphere which (imo) led to this incident, and the many incidents like it which I outlined in another post, is the best way to try and ensure that no one else has to die senselessly.
2) A charged political climate directly contributes to violence in the general population. This is statistically provable; just look at the incidents of vandalism and assault (usually against muslims) post-9/11. If incensed rhetoric results in a more violent political climate, it will almost certainly translate into more of these tragedies.
3) I do not think there should be government regulation as far as political speech goes, but I definitely think politicians should be held accountable as far as public opinion goes, and possibly even in civil court, if it is apparent that they are using inflammatory language to incite their constituency into violence. While dialogue such as "[representative] is our enemy!" may be acceptable in the spirit of contentious debate, dialogue such as "[representative] doing [political action] is unacceptable and we may need to resort to 2nd amendment remedies" is not, since the former could be reasonably interpreted as political enmity, while the latter's violent implications are apparent.

Edit: Okay, apparently parts of the OP were made up. Thank you for the fact check, Luduan.

 

[MrIndigo]

I am honestly astounded by how both political parties jumped on this with huge amounts of rhetoric, each accusing the shooter of being a supporter of the other.


I'm pretty sure the actual cause is much simpler; the guy was a whackjob.

EDIT: Care of Digital Cuttlefish, an interesting, related, and sobering link.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

 

[Arch]

Just gonna say that it is hilarious that you guys are really discussing which side of the political spectrum has a higher body count in a thread about an attack on an Arizona Congresswoman.

Hilarious how predictable I suppose, but in bad bad taste. I don't know where this topic lost track, oh wait it's when everyone screamed politics and rushed in because they're soooo right, but it's sad to see the main focal point shift from the dead and injured to the shallow political accusations. I would blatantly say some of you should be ashamed of yourselves but it's apparent already. There is no respect for them where it was entirely meant to be. Contrary to what some of you believe, jumping your political gun to exploit deaths as a point in such a childish argument is disrespect.


Evan I love you. :D

 

[Chou Toshio]

As for me, I love incendiary rhetoric. How we discuss things as a society should not be dictated by what the craziest few will do when they hear a metaphor.

This. What happened to freedom of speech?

Let's put whatever motivations might or might not have been brought into this tragic event by a single crazy aside for a second. Implying that politicians or the wider media in general have some responsibility to baby the entirety of the population and enclose us in "padded walls" of dialogue apt to stop us from hurting ourselves is . . . frankly, ridiculous.

I'd say ban Halo, R Rated movies, and every other form of depicted extreme violence in the media before censoring politicians from using the word "attack" in a speech. *roll eyes* (and no I am NOT a proponent of such media censorship)

 

[FlareBlitz]

Implying that politicians or the wider media in general have some responsibility to baby the entirety of the population and enclose us in "padded walls" of dialogue apt to stop us from hurting ourselves is . . . frankly, ridiculous

Politicians do have a responsibility to remain calm and non-violent in their rhetoric. These are the people who are ostensibly leading the country. If they pander to the base tendencies of their constituency, it should surprise absolutely no one when that constituency reacts in exactly this sort of manner. You and I might be able to look past the insinuations of violence, but it's obvious that there are people who cannot, and continuing to incite their paranoia or anger definitely does place moral responsibility for their actions at least partially on the shoulders of those doing the inciting.

There seems to be some sort of misapprehension here that stripping violent connotations from our politics is for pussies; the disdain in the quoted passage, for instance, is almost palpable. It is short-sighted to believe that debate would be less vigorous if the political climate ceased to be as volatile as it is now. Indeed, powerful and influential figures like MLK and Gandhi used a message of non-violence to communicate their points, and perhaps less emphasis on fiery political speeches would result in a greater emphasis on the actual issues, which we all can agree would be a good thing.

Finally, your comparison to violent media such as video games or movies is specious at best: simulations of violence, which have empirically been proven to have little or no impact on behavior, are a far cry from the implicit condoning of violence from authority figures, which have empirically been proven to have a vast impact on behavior (see: Milgram experiment).

Edit: Just read the CSGV link. My god that is some scary shit.

 

[Xaqwais]

Should I be the standard whiny Muslim and just complain that he's not being called a terrorist? (Screw that)

That CSGV link was eye-opening, indeed though.

 

[Trax]

Abortion clinic bombings have been in total of about seven. Pro-life groups condemn EVERY act of violence against the clinics and their workers.

Much like every remotely credible Muslim group condemns acts of terrorism, not that a good portion of the American population pays any attention to that.

“And I don’t care how this gets painted by the mainstream media. I don’t care if this shows up on YouTube, because I am convinced that the most important thing the founding fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will. I’ve never in my life thought that the day would come where I would tell individual citizens that you are responsible for being the militia that the founding fathers designed – they were very specific. You need to be prepared to fight tyranny: whether it comes from outside or it comes from inside

That really isn't doing a good job of disproving my point at all, I don't see how you can argue this isn't endorsing the use of violence to subvert democratic process - if Ballots don't work in your favor for any reason besides electoral fraud then you can either love it or leave as right wing types seem to like to put it.

Regardless of that, I'm not suggesting in any way to suppress free speech, but merely if people who want to be elected are going to go around spouting irresponsible inflammatory rhetoric then they should be ignored until they can behave like rational adults.

 

[Deck Knight]

Anyone with basic discernnment could realize the part of the graphic with the bullseye and the picture of Giffords were not part of the original post merely by checking the difference in the font used and its "placement" on the site, which is to say far outside the margins of all other lines of text. I'm sorry if I did not make that more obvious to those who went on to suggest my conservative compatriots are incapable of grasping metaphors.

The word bullseye was used and Giffords' name was bolded in that post. All Hillbuzz did was turn it into a graphical representation of the textual content.

Should we also ban Pokemon from the hands of children? After all its entire premise is doing violence onto other Pokemon and making them faint. There was that kid who thought he was a Pidgeot and jumped off a roof thinking he could fly.

What about Hip Hop? Jared Lee Loughner had an ipod in his ears at all times. What if the lyrics of those songs caused him to act? What if the ever degrading culture of television and music led Jared Lee Loughner to kill? Nevermind if he had gangster rap on there.

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? The solution for some is always inexorably one thing: Civil discourse would be better if outlets that question the liberal narrative were curtailed. It doesn't matter how unrelated Talk Radio or individual political figures are to an act of violence. Whenever there is violence Talk Radio is to blame.

btw. Luduan, I checked your link for the Insurrectioniist Timeline. My search bar returned "No matches found" for Rush Limbaugh. The two mentions of Sarah Palin involve commentary on her "death panels post" and whining about some Joe Miller ralliers who *gasp* exposed their children to the idea that owning and maintaining a firearm for personal protection is not evil.

I asked FlareBlitz for specific statements from those two individuals. You did not provide with your link. You simply assumed it was there without verification (true, it is a long-ass list) because your premise is that these two people, one who is on for a sum total of 3 hours a day during weekday working hours (and the lunch hour I guess), and one who is currently not an elected official were to blame for all of the violence listed in the timeline. These sites are part of the reason the political climate is hostile, because the implicit assumption is that other people are going to do violence. Nevermind the entire idea that mere opposition to federal policies is "insurrectionist" is laughable. Plus, some of those things are just fluff. Putting it on an "insurrectionist timeline" might lead people to believe that an insurrection is imminent. That could lead them to act out violently.

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. But they will exercise that responsibility, and they will call that responsibility to mind. Bloodshed is not the only means to destroy a nation and is not even the most common. Overextension of credit and fiscal insolvency which bring on internal collapse are the usual culprits. Granted there are quite a few nuts out there, but this is what happens when you have a country of 308 million people dispersed over a massive geographic area. Even in the Insurrectionist Timeline the politics and mental state of the various "insurrectionists" are highly variable.

The calls to chill speech are an affront to the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment there can be no reasonable dialogue because all "unreasonable" dialogue is met with punishment. The call to weaken or curtail First Amendment protections is always brought up when tragedies like this occur because, as FlareBlitz seems to argue, no one man is ever responsible for their actions. In Loughner's case, his mental instability makes such analysis probable, but for those who kill in sober sanity (or even a drug-addled state) that logic cannot be applied in a free society. In the end the hand that solely pulls the trigger is the hand that should solely pay the price. The father of the 9 year old girl implored us not to curtail our liberties because of this tragedy. The cost of a free society is that occasionally a mad man slips through the cracks.

 

[evan]

I should note that under no circumstances do I support legislating a ban on "violent rhetoric" any more than I want to ban the use of the word "(BAN ME PLEASE)" in hip-hop music. Ultimately, responsibility lies on the speaker to realise when his or her rhetoric is being unhelpful and merely contributing to division and stress amongst the populace. This applies first and foremost to politicians, second to the media, and last to individuals (in the order of their influence). By leading by example and toning down their rhetoric, to paraphrase Jon Stewart who has always been the sanest voice on any type of media criticism, crazy will always find a way, but we can at least make it easier to spot.

Also, I think you are severely underestimating the effect that words, when repeated over and over by figures in the media and political actors, can have on a populace. When you dehumanise the enemy, you make it impossible to find compromise and your audience begins to wonder how people can possibly be okay with having this fascist/communist/socialist/warmonger in power leading to sharp divisions which split the citizenry and raise tensions. This is especially true when particularly controversial topics, such as immigration in Arizona, are on the table.

tl;dr: Under the First Amendment you have the right to free speech, but leaders should recognise that they have a responsibility not to use such dehumanising language because dehumanisation can have real effects.

 

[DM]

This thread saddens me just as much as the reactions I've been watching on television (for the most part).

Anything I could say is said in this video, and you should all watch it.

 

[Ancien Régime]

The point is that Loughner had no coherent political philosophy. He liked Mein Kampf AND the Communist Manifesto (and I doubt he has any real understanding of these political ideas, as opposed to just liking stuff that seemed "evil"). He believed that powerful shadowy figures were manipulating people's minds. He might have picked up a little gold-standard rhetoric from various sources, but there is not even any coherent ideology that you could place him into.



Yes, you could make the argument that the current political climate makes politically motivated attacks on public figures more likely. However, this was not a politically motivated attack the same way as the murder of Edward Tiller or the Oklahoma City bombing, so that argument is irrelevant to the Tuscon shooting. Loughner was obsessed with Giffords dating from 2007, and his obsessesion was far more personal than it was political.

Not to mention that, historically, pretty much every major explicitly pacifist and nonviolent movement has been at root a left-wing movement.

Also, I know you said "pretty much", but may I kindly direct you to a major non-leftwing anti-interventionist group?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Here I was thinking that Deck Knight had finally taken a turn for the better after reading his initial post, but then after reading the rest of the thread I found that this was just another not-so-thinly veiled attack on his paranoid vision of a communist liberal American conquest. It only took one post for Deck to go from advocating a kinder political climate to saying asinine shit like "most mad men are leftists" and "liberals are trying to take free speech"

To take an idea from Deck's version of the antichrist, Michael Moore, if a Muslim with a history of inciting violence put crosshairs on 20 US politicians and one of them wound up getting shot in the head, where do you think they'd be sitting right now? Oh, that's right, people like you and Palin would be calling for their head. I agree that rhetoric alone can't pull the trigger, but brushing it off like you seem to be doing is just as fallacious.

Let me use your own logic to explain why that is wrong:

There are real consequences to normalizing a behavior that has over many different times and cultures shown to have similar dysfunctional characteristics.

Oh isn't it just funny how when gays get one step closer to equality, normalizing THAT behavior is dangerous for society and should be stopped? But normalizing violent and intentionally incendiary rhetoric against politicians? Yeah, that's protected! Your hypocrisy continues to astound me.

It's just a damn shame to me that you took what were a couple of great points...namely that not every tragedy can be blamed on politics, and that incendiary rhetoric is a growing problem in America for both sides (even if you are in denial about which side most of it comes from)...and you turned it into the inane garbage that you have spewed in the rest of the thread. Way to draw us all in for a disappointment. I was going to support your OP until I read the rest of your posts, and I was going to bring up the fact that Palin isn't to blame since she didn't write about 99% of the things attributed to her. She has very busy ghost writers writing her books, tweets, facebook posts, web pages, speeches, etc. The chances that she even knew about her crosshair picture before this happened were very slim.

Your only good point in the entire thread was when you said the only way to stop this BS is to ignore it. If only the rest of the American populace felt that way, but they gobble this "us vs them" crap up instead of focusing on how everyone is getting screwed at the same time.

Lati0s: Not everything is about atheism. Seriously.

For anyone with a conscience, now would be the time to pray for the ded, their families, and the families

So please everyone, can we get back to

PRAYING FOR THE INJURED, THE DEAD, AND THEIR FAMILIES? THANK YOU.

Seriously dude? After advocating that everyone "get back to" doing possibly the most useless thing in the world in the OP (twice and in a huge font), and then implying that if you don't pray then you don't have a conscience, you tell him to stop bringing up atheism? Go cry persecution some more, nobody is trying to attack you.

Oh, and [edit] here's what I believe Luduan was looking for

Your leaders will be in the enemy’s crosshairs. You never win playing defense, get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate enemy territory. Use your weapons. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead reload!

- Sarah Palin's Biography, America by Heart

 

[FlareBlitz]

Should we also ban Pokemon from the hands of children? After all its entire premise is doing violence onto other Pokemon and making them faint. There was that kid who thought he was a Pidgeot and jumped off a roof thinking he could fly.

What about Hip Hop? Jared Lee Loughner had an ipod in his ears at all times. What if the lyrics of those songs caused him to act? What if the ever degrading culture of television and music led Jared Lee Loughner to kill? Nevermind if he had gangster rap on there.

Already addressed this, please pay attention:

Finally, your comparison to violent media such as video games or movies is specious at best: simulations of violence, which have empirically been proven to have little or no impact on behavior, are a far cry from the implicit condoning of violence from authority figures, which have empirically been proven to have a vast impact on behavior (see: Milgram experiment).

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? The solution for some is always inexorably one thing: Civil discourse would be better if outlets that question the liberal narrative were curtailed. It doesn't matter how unrelated Talk Radio or individual political figures are to an act of violence. Whenever there is violence Talk Radio is to blame.

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 asked FlareBlitz for specific statements from those two individuals. You did not provide with your link. You simply assumed it was there without verification (true, it is a long-ass list) because your premise is that these two people, one who is on for a sum total of 3 hours a day during weekday working hours (and the lunch hour I guess), and one who is currently not an elected official were to blame for all of the violence listed in the timeline.

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."

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!

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.

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...

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. But they will exercise that responsibility, and they will call that responsibility to mind. Bloodshed is not the only means to destroy a nation and is not even the most common. Overextension of credit and fiscal insolvency which bring on internal collapse are the usual culprits. Granted there are quite a few nuts out there, but this is what happens when you have a country of 308 million people dispersed over a massive geographic area. Even in the Insurrectionist Timeline the politics and mental state of the various "insurrectionists" are highly variable.

I am genuinely 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.

The calls to chill speech are an affront to the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment there can be no reasonable dialogue because all "unreasonable" dialogue is met with punishment. The call to weaken or curtail First Amendment protections is always brought up when tragedies like this occur because, as FlareBlitz seems to argue, no one man is ever responsible for their actions.

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.

 

[hobo bob]

For once I agree with Deck Knight? What?
In all seriousness, I think it's disgusting how the media is trying to put a political spin
on an assassination attempt. Hopefully Giffords will survive, for the others who weren't so lucky, rest in peace.

Oh and I didn't have a chance to read any other posts from DK just the OP so yea.