Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords shot.

[Bela]

Preventing disasters like this is a higher priority, because it will save lives.

This is what I mean by inaction.

I honestly believe that violent rhetoric in our national political dialogue leads people to commit violent acts. Even if it is in the slightest bit a persuasion, any promotion of violence should be discouraged.

There are those who may consider this analysis of our media's use of violent rhetoric to be comparable to "political mud-slinging," but this is unfounded. I would concede that every example provided by my previous video consists of a conservative commentator inciting violence, but it does not follow that I am in any manner "attacking conservatives." Could it be that there hasn't been a single "liberal" who has engaged in violent rhetoric for me to offer as an example? The simple truth is, there is only one "side" who has engaged in violent rhetoric, and Keith Olbermann, Howard Dean, and Cenk Uyger are not among their ranks. ;)

 

[Trap-Eds]

Is it really too much to demand of our media and elected representatives to tone down their rhetoric, lest it be considered insightful of violence?

Yes, yes it is. Unfortunately, people wouldn't pay much attention in the first place if the "facts" weren't exaggerated. :/

Well, some people directed blame at Sarah Palin, because of that poster featuring "bullseyes" over Democratic-held congressional seats, including Ms. Giffords district.

...so people are just taking a metaphor too seriously? Ugh. I think this is what Bela means by "toning down rhetoric." I agree.

I think you should care about what happens to him. He deserves just punishment for what he did, to the highest extent of the law. How and why people do these heinous things is important, but that's only half the equation. Preventing disasters like this is a higher priority, because it will save lives.

How will killing or putting away one guy stop others from doing what he did? I'm probably going to sound like a huge jerk here, but to me the shooter is just another crazy guy out there. He should've gotten help before anything happened.

 

[Bela]

Yes, yes it is. Unfortunately, people wouldn't pay much attention in the first place if the "facts" weren't exaggerated. :/

Violent rhetoric != facts

Even so, there is no excuse for using violent rhetoric as a means of grabbing people's attention. *That* sounds like exploitation to me!

I would love to hear you explain yourself as to why it is too much to ask our media and politicians to tone down their rhetoric, though.

...so people are just taking a metaphor too seriously?

Apparently Jared Loughner took it literally. You can argue he didn't look at Sarah Palin's gun sight graphic and then got the idea to shoot Congresswoman Giffords (as he was apparently interested in Giffords for some time), but this does not in any way excuse the graphic.

If you're a fan of George Carlin as you lead on to be, then you should remember that he said to "always question the perceived reality." So it has been stated that the graphic of the gun sights is just a metaphor, yes? And you hold it to be true that Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the violence which occurs in this country, yes? You should question this. Skepticism is what George Carlin advocated, and I feel you should be skeptical of what you hear and read in the media. The media has said that both sides have engaged in violent rhetoric, that Jared Loughner was a liberal, that the shooting was not politically motivated, and that Sarah Palin's gun sights graphic was a metaphor. I invite you to question these.

How will killing or putting away one guy stop others from doing what he did?

Well, that is how our justice system is supposed to work. Again using Giffords comment: just as there are "consequences" for violent rhetoric in the media (shootings), it should be seen that there are consequences for shooting people (asylum, prison, death penalty).

 

[Shining Arcanine]

Source.

Put guns in the hands of ignorant people, rile them up with a political agenda, and watch how the chips fall. This is a disgrace and I'm ashamed of my country and the people in it. Something like this should never happen.

Her crime? Supporting a health care bill? Voting democratically? Whatever the reason, it's not good enough.

I think she was planning to vote in favor of repealing the health care bill.

Anyway, no one put guns into this guy's hands. He obtained them of his own accord. If you want something badly enough, there are ways of getting it, whether it is legal or not. Just look at all of the laboratories people build in their homes to synthesize cocanine. Heck, there was one boy scout more than a decade ago that tried building his own nuclear reactor. According to reports, he produced such high levels of radiation during the course of his experiments that artificial radiation could be detected blocks away if you had the right tool for it.

 

[Livewire]

I think she was planning to vote in favor of repealing the health care bill.

Anyway, no one put guns into this guy's hands. He obtained them of his own accord. If you want something badly enough, there are ways of getting it, whether it is legal or not. Just look at all of the laboratories people build in their homes to synthesize cocanine. Heck, there was one boy scout more than a decade ago that tried building his own nuclear reactor. According to reports, he produced such high levels of radiation during the course of his experiments that artificial radiation could be detected blocks away if you had the right tool for it.



I fail to see how signs count as "violent rhetoric" considering that they are read and not heard. Rhetoric in all its forms, involves long-form language language like that found in a monologue while these signs are examples of short-form language like what you find in instant messages. Being rhetoric would also involve expression of complete thoughts, which is something that I fail to see here.

A political view is a philosophy according to which people think government should be run. These signs express incomplete thoughts and therefore cannot form the philosophies required to be political views either. While you find them offensive, they are nothing more than emotional reactions to political opponents. Some people would call this free speech, but signs do not speak. This belongs more to the category of freedom of expression, which states that this behavior is okay. If you believe in the concept of free expression, then you must believe that these things are okay, even if they are not appealing to you.

Signs with guns on them would count as violent in my book.

You're underestimating the power that words have, and especially inflammatory ones like those mentioned above, that whip people into a frenzy and turn them into an angry mob. I left out the signs and video clips that mentioned "Death to Obama" and other hateful remarks. While the signs might not be advocating violence directly, the thoughts and imagery they convey allows for violence to happen. And Jared Loughner proves that.

 

[Aurafire]

Honestly, I wonder how this turned into a "bashing the Tea Party" thread. Might as well just change the thread title.

The president said it himself: "Don't use this tragedy as an excuse to turn on each other and place blame." And yet, the only discussion we can manage in this thread is pointing out the "violent rhetoric" of the Tea Party. If there is in fact no evidence that the shooter was associated with the Tea Party or was affected in any way by media outlets or the political landscape (which it turns out is probably the case), then why are we discussing it?

We're politicizing something that shouldn't be politicized in the first place. I don't mind if people bring up gun rights or have a problem with the message of the Tea Party, but why on earth is it being related to this particular case, when there is no evidence to support a link between the shooter and any of these issues? It's like you guys are willing this link to actually exist simply because you don't like the Tea Party's message or their methods, and you're still using this tragedy as an excuse to protest against them. As I said in my first post in this thread, absolutely shameless. This gunman is a crazed and deranged lunatic, and attempting to rationalize his actions is pointless, since he clearly isn't rational. I'm sure you've all seen his mugshot by now. Pretty much looks like he should be locked in an insane asylum, right?

If it can be proven that the shooter saw this "violent rhetoric", and if it did indeed influence him, and if it did drive him to shoot the congresswoman in kill all those other people, then I'll shut my mouth. But there are an awful lot of ifs in there.

EDIT: Oh, and just so everyone knows that this supposed rhetoric isn't coming just from the right: https://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

(does contain some coarse language, just trying to prove a point though)

 

[SBaby]

It's like you guys are willing this link to actually exist simply because you don't like the Tea Party's message or their methods, and you're still using this tragedy as an excuse to protest against them. As I said in my first post in this thread, absolutely shameless. This gunman is a crazed and deranged lunatic, and attempting to rationalize his actions is pointless, since he clearly isn't rational.

Yeah, he looks like someone who knows the time of day. Honestly, it's disgusting and shameful that anyone would use this kind of tragedy as an excuse to bash any political group. I can't make them stop doing it, but the more they do it, the less respect I have for them and rightly so.

Just remember folks, when you use a tragedy like this for personal or political gain, you not only dishonor the memories of those that lost their lives, but you also render their deaths meaningless. You're basically saying that you're glad it happened so you have something else to blame on your opponent.

Preventing disasters like this is a higher priority, because it will save lives.

Sadly, as long as people have the attitude that tragedies like this can so easily be blamed on a political party, it will be utterly impossible to stop them from happening. If people are so easily distracted by a political figure in this kind of tragedy, how then will they act when something even more catastrophic occurs?

 

[Trap-Eds]

Violent rhetoric != facts

Even so, there is no excuse for using violent rhetoric as a means of grabbing people's attention. *That* sounds like exploitation to me!

I would love to hear you explain yourself as to why it is too much to ask our media and politicians to tone down their rhetoric, though.

I believe it is simply a matter of making the content of the rhetoric interesting, like you said. To appeal to as many people as possible, to ensure that enough people are aware of the issue the media has to exaggerate as much as possible. It would be too much to tone down because so much of it is out there already and people still expect it. I agree; it IS exploitation and it should be toned down...but I'm not sure how. People just expect to hear this bombastic news stories. Perhaps the media should work less on exaggerating the facts and more on exemplifying the truth.

But that's a bit off-topic, soo...

If you're a fan of George Carlin as you lead on to be, then you should remember that he said to "always question the perceived reality." So it has been stated that the graphic of the gun sights is just a metaphor, yes? And you hold it to be true that Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the violence which occurs in this country, yes? You should question this. Skepticism is what George Carlin advocated, and I feel you should be skeptical of what you hear and read in the media. The media has said that both sides have engaged in violent rhetoric, that Jared Loughner was a liberal, that the shooting was not politically motivated, and that Sarah Palin's gun sights graphic was a metaphor. I invite you to question these.

I am skeptical of what the media says. They are always saying that "because of THIS, we should kill/destroy/hurt THIS." But in doing so they tend to miss, exaggerate or cut out a lot of information, which either leads to the whole rhetoric thing we're discussing, or to people misinterpreting it, or both. Whenever I watch the news I almost always find myself wanting to know just a little bit more about what the heck's going on that they don't bother saying...which is why I don't watch the news much. Urrrgh.

If Jared Loughner was a liberal and truly thought he was doing the right thing...well, that's a tough one. We have to consider what exactly a "liberal person" IS, and then figure out whether or not he's even slightly justified. And that's a whole 'nother bucket of worms.

Sarah Palin's metaphor may have been over the top for some people, like Loughner for instance, and then it may not. It depends on what the individual sees. Did he say anything that influenced him to shoot all those people? It's like what Aurafire said:

If it can be proven that the shooter saw this "violent rhetoric", and if it did indeed influence him, and if it did drive him to shoot the congresswoman in kill all those other people, then I'll shut my mouth. But there are an awful lot of ifs in there.

TL;DR: The media exaggerates stuff and this guy's reasoning for the shooting is REALLY ambiguous.

OMG this took me like an HOUR to write; how do some of you guys take up like 5 pages?! D:

 

[Bela]

I think she was planning to vote in favor of repealing the health care bill.

Gabriel Giffords voted in favor of the health care bill and is a Democrat; no Democratic politician is in favor of the "repeal" vote, which will not succeed.

Perhaps the media should work less on exaggerating the facts and more on exemplifying the truth.

You continue to make this faulty connection that violent rhetoric and "exaggerated facts" are the same thing. They aren't. An exaggerated fact is saying that a man fired a thousand bullets from his gun when it was really only 30. Violent rhetoric is saying that if ballots won't work, bullets will. The difference can't be any clearer. This isn't about making the news "interesting." That would be hyping up news. What we're talking about here is elected officials, pundits on television, radio, and in other forms of media making statements which use violent imagery, the usage of which has been shown to be accompanied by a number of shootings (the Tuscon event is only one in a series of shootings that has happened over the last two years). So do you see now, Trap-Eds? What you're talking about, and what this topic is about, are two very different things.


For those following this discussion, the following two posts raise objections and ask questions which are resolved if you read by posts above.

Spoiler:

Honestly, I wonder how this turned into a "bashing the Tea Party" thread. Might as well just change the thread title.

The president said it himself: "Don't use this tragedy as an excuse to turn on each other and place blame." And yet, the only discussion we can manage in this thread is pointing out the "violent rhetoric" of the Tea Party. If there is in fact no evidence that the shooter was associated with the Tea Party or was affected in any way by media outlets or the political landscape (which it turns out is probably the case), then why are we discussing it?

We're politicizing something that shouldn't be politicized in the first place. I don't mind if people bring up gun rights or have a problem with the message of the Tea Party, but why on earth is it being related to this particular case, when there is no evidence to support a link between the shooter and any of these issues? It's like you guys are willing this link to actually exist simply because you don't like the Tea Party's message or their methods, and you're still using this tragedy as an excuse to protest against them. As I said in my first post in this thread, absolutely shameless. This gunman is a crazed and deranged lunatic, and attempting to rationalize his actions is pointless, since he clearly isn't rational. I'm sure you've all seen his mugshot by now. Pretty much looks like he should be locked in an insane asylum, right?

If it can be proven that the shooter saw this "violent rhetoric", and if it did indeed influence him, and if it did drive him to shoot the congresswoman in kill all those other people, then I'll shut my mouth. But there are an awful lot of ifs in there.

EDIT: Oh, and just so everyone knows that this supposed rhetoric isn't coming just from the right: https://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

(does contain some coarse language, just trying to prove a point though)

Spoiler:

It's like you guys are willing this link to actually exist simply because you don't like the Tea Party's message or their methods, and you're still using this tragedy as an excuse to protest against them. As I said in my first post in this thread, absolutely shameless. This gunman is a crazed and deranged lunatic, and attempting to rationalize his actions is pointless, since he clearly isn't rational.

Yeah, he looks like someone who knows the time of day. Honestly, it's disgusting and shameful that anyone would use this kind of tragedy as an excuse to bash any political group. I can't make them stop doing it, but the more they do it, the less respect I have for them and rightly so.

Just remember folks, when you use a tragedy like this for personal or political gain, you not only dishonor the memories of those that lost their lives, but you also render their deaths meaningless. You're basically saying that you're glad it happened so you have something else to blame on your opponent.

Preventing disasters like this is a higher priority, because it will save lives.

Sadly, as long as people have the attitude that tragedies like this can so easily be blamed on a political party, it will be utterly impossible to stop them from happening. If people are so easily distracted by a political figure in this kind of tragedy, how then will they act when something even more catastrophic occurs?

Spoiler:

When a person makes statements that are ignorant of posts just a few above it, and by a moderator no less, it makes ME wonder if that somebody read the entire thread before posting!

No, it's not that: a certain somebody doesn't like that the political movement known as the "tea party" is being implicated as inciting violence. To me, these posts HAVE to be willfully ignorant of the others in the thread, and I think that constitutes as either spam or trolling. There's certainly rules about reading the entire thread before posting, is there not? I lament the futility of having an honest, intelligent discussion if there are those who will essentially troll this thread with their ignorance, willful or not.

And you want to use Michelle Malkin's blog to make the case that there is equal rhetoric on both political sides that incite violence? Okay AuraFire, I'll raise you one Cenk Uyger that addresses that very argument you're trying to make:

​

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Gabriel Giffords voted in favor of the health care bill and is a Democrat; no Democratic politician is in favor of the "repeal" vote, which will not succeed.

Wrong. Over 30 House Democrats voted against the bill. Plenty of Democrats support the repeal effort. The Senate Democrats are less fragmented, however.

 

[Esper]

I read that she's able to smile now and recognize her husband. Her doctors have moved her from critical condition down to serious condition. I find it so remarkable that she's not only recovering, but recovering as (relatively) quickly as she is. With all the odds she's beaten all ready I don't think it's totally unrealistic to hope for a complete recovery for her.

Aaaaaand in the wider context of tragedies like this shooting, just today I read about an accidental shooting at a high school in Los Angeles when a student's gun went off in their bag. People need to be more careful with their guns. People who own them, people who sell them, everyone. And it's not just the guns we have to be more careful about. There are so many things that combine together to cause these tragedies that we can't blame just one person, one parent, one law, one party, one anything. But we can't ignore something which is a contributor just because it might not be the single motivating cause. Lax gun control (in the legal sense and the personal) and angry rhetoric (political or otherwise) probably did contribute, but I'm sure the lack of proper psychological counseling available for people who need it is also a factor. And of course the one that also can't be ignored - the personal responsibility factor.

 

[SBaby]

No, it's not that: a certain somebody doesn't like that the political movement known as the "tea party" is being implicated as inciting violence. To me, these posts HAVE to be willfully ignorant of the others in the thread, and I think that constitutes as either spam or trolling. There's certainly rules about reading the entire thread before posting, is there not? I lament the futility of having an honest, intelligent discussion if there are those who will essentially troll this thread with their ignorance, willful or not.

I know you're not talking to me with this quote.

First of all, if you're going to accuse someone of trolling, why don't you go look the definition of that word up in the dictionary? Because you clearly don't know the difference between trolling and stating an opinion.

I made a valid point by saying people (not just on this site, but everywhere) are using this tragedy to lay blame on someone that doesn't agree with their own opinion. And doing so not only dishonors the memories of those that died in the tragedy, but also renders their deaths meaningless. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, then tell me I am and tell me how doing that honors their memories.

And now you're accusing us for trolling for speaking the truth? First off, if we were trolling, we would've been infracted by now. Even though I don't always agree with them, the mods' decisions usually at least make sense.

It sounds to me like you're trying to derail this thread into a flame war because you don't agree with our opinions, but it won't work. I may have mentioned what the end result of this kind of attitude by people is, but did I ever accuse anyone of trolling? No. Because they weren't. They were just stating opinions like me, even if I didn't agree with them.

As it is, you didn't even address my question in that post. So who's trolling who?

 

[Aurafire]

When a person makes statements that are ignorant of posts just a few above it, and by a moderator no less, it makes ME wonder if that somebody read the entire thread before posting!

I don't need to read this entire thread, I'm well-educated and keep up to date with the news, as I have done with this particular issue, and I'm entitled to my opinion. Why would I read a bunch of posts from idealistic children? And I'm fairly certain my position on staff has nothing to do with this argument.

No, it's not that: a certain somebody doesn't like that the political movement known as the "tea party" is being implicated as inciting violence. To me, these posts HAVE to be willfully ignorant of the others in the thread, and I think that constitutes as either spam or trolling. There's certainly rules about reading the entire thread before posting, is there not? I lament the futility of having an honest, intelligent discussion if there are those who will essentially troll this thread with their ignorance, willful or not.

Do you even know what trolling is? My post wasn't spam, as it was perfectly on topic, and I was respectfully expressing my opinions about the shooting and other people's view of it. Just because I disagree with someone else doesn't mean I'm trolling, lol.

And you want to use Michelle Malkin's blog to make the case that there is equal rhetoric on both political sides that incite violence? Okay AuraFire, I'll raise you one Cenk Uyger that addresses that very argument you're trying to make:

It's "Aurafire", don't capitalize the "f" please. And no, I actually disagree with that statement. I don't think any political rhetoric is intense enough to incite this type of violence. I think it's absolutely insane that we're trying rationalize the actions of a psychopath by attempting to link his actions with political speech and tactics that have been in use longer than we've all been alive. I think the mainstream media is so caught up with with their hatred of Sarah Palin, Tea Party supporters, and Republicans in office that they've used this tragedy to further their own political agenda, which I will say for a third time, is shameful. While the shooter did indeed have political motives, as shown by his rants on Myspace and Youtube, not a shred of evidence has been shown that supports the argument that "violent political rhetoric" from the right caused him to commit these murders. Feel free to prove me wrong. Pure speculation doesn't count either, aka "Well Sarah Palin used cross-hairs on her political map so that must have made him do it!"

I posted the Michelle Malkin video to counter the point that all "violent political rhetoric" comes from the right. One person's view of her references don't automatically discount them. We could go back and forth, arguing and posting cases of "violent political rhetoric" from both the right and left, but the fact that you don't believe it comes from both sides kind of makes that argument pointless.

Sorry for trolling this thread with my ignorance! Protip: learn to respect other people's opinions instead of trying to insult them.

 

[Bela]

Wrong. Over 30 House Democrats voted against the bill. Plenty of Democrats support the repeal effort. The Senate Democrats are less fragmented, however.

I said nothing about the vote for the health care bill. And yes, Gabriel Giffords did vote for the health care law:

Aye AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]

Virtually no Democrat will vote in favor of repeal. It is purely political grandstanding by the Republicans as even they will admit they do not expect to actually repeal the law.

When a person makes statements that are ignorant of posts just a few above it, and by a moderator no less, it makes ME wonder if that somebody read the entire thread before posting!

I don't need to read this entire thread, I'm well-educated and keep up to date with the news, as I have done with this particular issue, and I'm entitled to my opinion. Why would I read a bunch of posts from idealistic children? And I'm fairly certain my position on staff has nothing to do with this argument.

If you are the age you state in your profile, then we're the same age. And for a moderator to lack the etiquette to be respectful of others, and instead dismiss everyone in this thread as just "idealistic children?" I have some advice for you, and I think you might be familiar with it:

Protip: learn to respect other people's opinions instead of trying to insult them.

Now as for the actual issue here that I was raising: I have no problem with your opposition to gun control laws or to the implications that violent rhetoric that has been in print, the airwaves, and on television for some time now has had any influence on Loughner or other shootings that have taken place within the past few years. I will agree with you that under President Bush, there was violent imagery and talk of tyranny.

But where I will disagree with you is that the same group of people who objected to Bush's actions are the same that do now about President Obama. And I don't really care if it's liberals, conservatives, or otherwise who are making use of violent rhetoric, just that such rhetoric exists. The Daily Show made a good point out of this a while back; it appears as though the fear that has arisen since the election of this president seem to be ginned up and based on really nothing: what marxist, socialist, dystopian future are we going to arrive at because of a marginal increase of taxes for the wealthiest group of Americans, tax hikes which don't even match the ones President Reagan instated, and in some cases aren't even hikes but the expiration of tax breaks? What I'm getting at is that this violent rhetoric is reprehensible, regardless of who is saying it or why it is being said. I can, however, point out where a significant source of this rhetoric is coming from at this current point in time; it doesn't mean I would turn around and say "okay those who didn't engage in this violent rhetoric, have at it!"

I originally stated in this thread that nobody should engage in violent rhetoric. But it doesn't follow that there exists, here and now, an equal amount of violent rhetoric from all political "sides." It's largely an irrelevant point to debate as it shouldn't matter who is saying it, just that it stops, right?

Now for my objections to what I have termed "spamming" and "trolling." You can play semantics and define your actions however you please, but you cannot say

Honestly, I wonder how this turned into a "bashing the Tea Party" thread. Might as well just change the thread title.

and then not have the thought occur to people that you didn't read the posts which stated that a case could be made that rhetoric used by the Tea Party had these violent consequences. But you go further to say:

I don't need to read this entire thread, I'm well-educated and keep up to date with the news, as I have done with this particular issue, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

I'm not talking about your understanding of the news or anything that is outside of the discussion in this thread. Instead, I'm referring to only that--the discussion we were having in this thread. If you post in this thread, you are contributing to this discussion, are you not? (If you are not, then you are spamming.) If you post "I wonder how we started talking about this thing," then either you should re-read part of the thread, or you didn't read part of at all. Your argument is not backed up by saying "I'm well informed and am entitled by my opinion," because that does not shield you from your ignorance of the content of posts in the thread you are supposed to be contributing to by posting there. If you are aware of those posts which lay the case out before you and then post that you don't see how we ever had the case laid out before us, does this sort of willful ignorance not make you trolling?

What does it take to troll, then? Have a sock puppet account that posts alongside you for the purpose of using that age-old "if more people say the same thing, then I'll appear to be right" approach? What does it take?

So who's trolling who?

If it is true that Aurafire created those posts and was aware that I already addressed what they professed ignorance of, then it would mean that my addressing that very thing would be taking the bait, in which case Aurafire is trolling me. And if Aurafire is not trolling me, then some derivative of ignorance is at work.

I don't consider this flaming in the slightest bit. It seems to me that the only person who says that something could become a flame war are those who really, really want it become one. It would never occur to me that those partaking in this discussion could become uncivil and incapable of making their points and counterpoints in this thread, and I certainly would hope that doesn't happen. Why can't I say that it is my opinion that members of the forum are posting in this thread in a manner which is disingenuous to an honest discussion? If "it's my opinion" is a bullet-proof defense like you want it to be, then I will resort to the same to "protect" my statements.

To summarize my position on the Tuscon shooting: Jared Loughner shot Gabriel Giffords at a political event and called his actions "an assassination." Those are facts. It should follow that Jared Loughner certainly considered his actions political in nature. It is just the unfortunate luck of individuals such as Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, G. Gordon Liddy, Sharon Engle, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others who happened to make statements over the past two or more years which could be considered inciteful of violence, and have the unfortunate luck to be accompanied by a number of shootings. It does not follow that violent rhetoric is only reprehensible when used by the right--that is irrational to conclude. No individual should make use of violent rhetoric, as there are severe consequences to doing so and such rhetoric is reprehensible in and of itself.

 

[Aurafire]

To summarize my position on the Tuscon shooting: Jared Loughner shot Gabriel Giffords at a political event and called his actions "an assassination." Those are facts. It should follow that Jared Loughner certainly considered his actions political in nature. It is just the unfortunate luck of individuals such as Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, G. Gordon Liddy, Sharon Engle, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others who happened to make statements over the past two or more years which could be considered inciteful of violence, and have the unfortunate luck to be accompanied by a number of shootings. It does not follow that violent rhetoric is only reprehensible when used by the right--that is irrational to conclude. No individual should make use of violent rhetoric, as there are severe consequences to doing so and such rhetoric is reprehensible in and of itself.

This is the only part of your post I actually care about, and I agree with almost everything. However, the language and nature of politics in our country as well as others has always had an aggressive undertone. People are passionate about their views, and in order to defend those views (and for politicians to defend their positions in government), violent language has always been used.

Where we disagree is the extent to which this language can affect the actions of others. I do not believe that rational people will resort to this type of violence simply due to violent language used in political discourse. We all agree that Jared Loughner was deranged and mentally unstable, with rants and actions to support this instability. It was the most unfortunate of circumstances that caused this tragedy. But the need to rationalize his reasons for killing all those people by attacking the language used by prominent political figures almost every day is what I don't understand. We cannot know for sure whether he was influenced by this language, and yet many still feel the need to criticize those political figures (most of them on the right). So I guess my main point would be, why would "violent political rhetoric" even be brought up and related to this case when there is no evidence support a link between the two? This seems to be an unfortunate case of a crazed man who happened to get a hold of a gun and act on his obsession with the congresswoman, nothing more.

Anyway, apologies if I insulted you in any way, but you shed first blood with the whole "ignorance and trolling" thing, neither of which is accurate even in the slightest.

 

[kidpunk]

I feel bad for the husband. He grew up in and went to high school in my town (West Orange), and has kept in touch with one of my teachers for over the passed 25 years (she had both him and his twin). She sent him an e-mail, but he has yet to respond.

My thoughts are with them.

 

[Tyrantrum]

I live about three hours away from Tuscon. The daily announcements at school said to wear green the next day in memory of the people that were killed in the shooting. I never thought so many people would wear green that day.

My condolences to the victims' families.

 

[Shining Arcanine]

Signs with guns on them would count as violent in my book.

You're underestimating the power that words have, and especially inflammatory ones like those mentioned above, that whip people into a frenzy and turn them into an angry mob. I left out the signs and video clips that mentioned "Death to Obama" and other hateful remarks. While the signs might not be advocating violence directly, the thoughts and imagery they convey allows for violence to happen. And Jared Loughner proves that.

Do you think that this is the first time that a politician in the US has been shot? People in the US have been shooting politicians for more than a century and the rhetoric at the time usually has nothing to do with it.

Borrowing a list from another forum:

• President Jackson was nearly assassinated by an apolitical nut-case, Richard Lawrence (who believed that he himself was King Richard III and Jackson was keeping the U.S. from paying him money the U.S. owed him).
• President Garfield was assassinated by a Democrat nut-case, Charles Guiteau (he was actually "Republican", but that was back when "Republicans" were what Democrats are now; he actually worked in a low-level capacity on Garfield's campaign, but thought Garfield owed him a cabinet appointment or ambassadorship).
• President McKinley was assassinated by a Socialist-Anarchist, Leon Czolgosz.
• President Kennedy was assassinated by a Socialist nut-case, Lee Harvey Oswald (who had actually defected to the USSR for a time).
• President Roosevelt was nearly assassinated by apolitical nut-case, John F. Schrank (who believed the ghost of William McKinley told him to do it).
• Presidient Truman was nearly assassinated by Puerto Rican separatists, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola.
• President Nixon was not-so-nearly assassinated by a socialist nut-case, Samuel Byck (who had been in a psychiatric hospital and believed the White House was conspiring to oppress the poor, he hijacked an airliner and was going to fly it into the White House).
• President Ford was nearly assassinated by a radical nut-case, Lynette Fromme (a follower of Charles Manson; she didn't know she had to **** the pistol; I don't know how to describe her politics, if anything, they were socialist-anarchist).
• Only weeks later, Ford was again nearly assassinated, by Socialist-Anarchist Sara Jane Moore (who only missed his head by six inches).
• President Reagan was nearly assassinated by apolitical nut-case, John Hinckley, Jr. (who did it to impress actress Jodie Foster, whom he had been stalking).
• President Clinton was nearly assassinated apolitical nut-case, Frank E. Corder (who tried to fly a plane into the Oval Office but crashed on the White House lawn, killing himself; this may have been simple suicide).
• Three weeks later, another apolitical nut-case, Francisco M. Duran, tried to assassinate Clinton with an assault rifle (he was trying to save the world from "the mist" connected to an alien in the Colorado mountains by an umbilical cord).
• Apolitical nut-case Robert Pickett took pot-shots at the White House when George W. Bush was in it (he was a disgruntled former IRS employee with a history of mental illness).

If you want to play the blame game, then things could really become ugly considering that half of the people on this list are leftists and the other half are apolitical. There is also the fact that one of the victims from the shooting, a registered Democrat, was arrested for making death threats shortly after he was discharged from a hospital. There is also the fact that shootings occur on a regular basis in the US and that the overwhelming majority of them are performed with black market guns that will exist regardless of laws or rhetoric.

 

[Bela]

If you want to play the blame game,

I'm not playing a "blame game." I think you and others are confusing identifying a source for the current outbreak of violence with me saying that, now and forever, the only people capable of resorting to violent actions are those who are identifed at this very moment. It is an irrational conclusion to make, and it is not the one I want you to make. As I said above, outbreaks of violence can be attributed to the rhetoric used by politicians and the media, and I think it would be a hard case to make that the "left" has generated as significant an amount of violent rhetoric within the past two years to be identified as a source for the shootings that have taken place. I'm not saying that only conservatives are capable of resorting to violence. It really doesn't matter what your political views are, as you shouldn't be entrenched in a camp of "my guys versus your guys" and rush to defend conservative pundits and politicians who make violent, outrageous statements that boil down to condoning violence.

then things could really become ugly considering that half of the people on this list are leftists and the other half are apolitical.

I'd like to know where the source of this list came. Also it's spread over a longer time period, which isn't the same as the specific individuals mentioned in one of the videos I posted above, who all have made their statements within the past two years.

We cannot know for sure whether he was influenced by this language, and yet many still feel the need to criticize those political figures (most of them on the right).

I have said several times now that this violent rhetoric is reprehensible in and of itself. That is, even if there are no violent consequences that follow, such rhetoric should still not be used.

I don't care if it's the left or the right or whomever who uses this rhetoric; I simply don't want to see or hear it. I feel it leads to tragic consequences and should therefore be avoided.

So I guess my main point would be, why would "violent political rhetoric" even be brought up and related to this case when there is no evidence support a link between the two? This seems to be an unfortunate case of a crazed man who happened to get a hold of a gun and act on his obsession with the congresswoman, nothing more.

I have heard in the media, admittedly I heard it first from Fox News, that Jared Loughner was just a crazed man who acted on his own. I invite you to look at the other shootings which have taken place in the past few years. There is significant influence from the media, and I really don't think it should be ignored. Look at the case of Bill O'Reilly and Dr. George Tiller and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Shining Arcanine]

I'd like to know where the source of this list came. Also it's spread over a longer time period, which isn't the same as the specific individuals mentioned in one of the videos I posted above, who all have made their statements within the past two years.

Learn to use Google and Wikipedia. It is trivial to find the "source" and to be honest, there is no single source as the guy that posted it on another forum compiled it from public historical information, all of which is likely accessible on Wikipedia. If you are interested in pursuing study of this, do your own research about homocides in America. It might do you some good to research topics before forming opinions on them. This is like your school work and while I know some people do school work for other people, I won't do your school work for you.

I have said several times now that this violent rhetoric is reprehensible in and of itself. That is, even if there are no violent consequences that follow, such rhetoric should still not be used.

The term violent has nothing to do with rhetoric.

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violent
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric

Violence is focused on the concept of physical actions. The incidence of sounds is not considered to be a physical action. Rhetoric requires the expression of complete thoughts and the pictures of signs that you have posted do not express complete thoughts.

This is certainly something, but it is neither violent nor rhetoric. If you stop to consider that, perhaps you might be able to characterize it as something that it is. Learning another language (e.g. Latin) might help, as it will give you some clue as to ambiguities that exist in language where people often think that they are saying one thing, but what they are saying in reality has nothing to do with what they actually say. Just the other day I was asking about what someone did and the person thought I had inquired about an act that he performed, as opposed to his actual job. Having a decent education in Latin, I knew enough to have a conversation about why I was expecting to hear something along the lines of a job and why instead I was hearing something along the lines of some act that the person performed.

Furthermore, I would like to caution you against the notion of saying "x is definitely true; I have no evidence for it, but I definitely know that it is true". To put this into perspective, think about how many times have you been wrong in your life about anything, no matter how significant or insignificant. Were you not just as confident about being right about any of those things as you are now about this? If you had that level of confidence and that level of certainty, would the fact that you have such a level of confidence and certainty now not be indicative that you are wrong now too? Without tangible evidence, other people have no reason to believe anything that you say.

https://xkcd.com/552/

I'm not playing a "blame game." I think you and others are confusing identifying a source for the current outbreak of violence with me saying that, now and forever, the only people capable of resorting to violent actions are those who are identifed at this very moment. It is an irrational conclusion to make, and it is not the one I want you to make. As I said above, outbreaks of violence can be attributed to the rhetoric used by politicians and the media, and I think it would be a hard case to make that the "left" has generated as significant an amount of violent rhetoric within the past two years to be identified as a source for the shootings that have taken place. I'm not saying that only conservatives are capable of resorting to violence. It really doesn't matter what your political views are, as you shouldn't be entrenched in a camp of "my guys versus your guys" and rush to defend conservative pundits and politicians who make violent, outrageous statements that boil down to condoning violence.

With everything I said, you have no evidence for this. It is like saying that violent video games make people mass murders. You have no basis to say that there was not some other underlying psychological issue that caused this. You also have no basis for saying that a guy who was completely apolitical was affected by the words of politicians he hated. If he had been affected by such words, he certainly chose a very poor target. Gabrielle Giffords he shot was a "Blue Dog Democrat"; she supported Republican policies within the Democratic Party and voted with Republicans on key issues.