Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[punked]

It's fair to talk about that behavior, but not fair to tie actions of unbalanced people to them.

If you're trying to say that the Republicans were issuing threats, I don't buy it. Furthermore, if you're not clear in what you're saying about these things, and whether or not you're tying it to recent events then discussing it in the context of those recent events is opportunistic and crass.

I am saying the samething I was saying when Republicans started with this type of speech. It is going to lead to violence, there is nothing Democratic about it, and they need to stop and apologies before someone gets hurt.

Now that is has happened it is even more important they do this. Imagery and words lead to actions.

[Guest American Woman]

Not sure about the link - I have tried it and it works just fine.

Too bad, it's pertinent to my argument so I'll just leave it at that.

The link works for me, but the OP is just someone else's opinion; it's not backed by any facts to substantiate such claims.

Furthermore, in response to one of your earlier posts, "irresponsible" speech and terrorist attacks are hardly in the same league, and therefore not comparable.

[Michael Hardner]

Not sure about the link - I have tried it and it works just fine.

Too bad, it's pertinent to my argument so I'll just leave it at that.

Ok - it worked the 2nd time.

Krugman is right about the general atmosphere of intolerance, and - as I have been saying for awhile now - the potential for political violence growing in North America. BUT, it starts with unhinged individuals acting, and will continue only when reasonable people start taking sides on that.

Generally - the atmosphere needs to be more civil, I agree, but it's another thing to blame something (Republicans/Musims/Heavy Metal/Dungeons & Dragons/Comic Books) for triggering acts of violence.

[Michael Hardner]

I am saying the samething I was saying when Republicans started with this type of speech. It is going to lead to violence, there is nothing Democratic about it, and they need to stop and apologies before someone gets hurt.

Hmmm.... this type of argument is used in a lot of contexts, such as "criticizing our military helps the media". In other words, the effects of your speech no matter how small are your fault so shut up.

If you take it to that level, then surely you must agree that the effects of the speech you're making right now - making one party more responsible than other due to the acts of an insane person - also leads to violence.

Now that is has happened it is even more important they do this. Imagery and words lead to actions.

So we all should shut up about it ?

[punked]

Hmmm.... this type of argument is used in a lot of contexts, such as "criticizing our military helps the media". In other words, the effects of your speech no matter how small are your fault so shut up.

If you take it to that level, then surely you must agree that the effects of the speech you're making right now - making one party more responsible than other due to the acts of an insane person - also leads to violence.

So we all should shut up about it ?

No I am saying the samething as the Sheriff in AZ said today.

" Inflaming the American public by those who get paid to do that. It might be free speech but it does not come without consequences."

BTW it might interest you to know Republican Leader Kyl said the Sheriff should not have said that today in his presser. So I get when someone points out words matter after someone is shot they should not say that but when you say things that may lead to violence that is all good.

K.

[msj]

Ok - it worked the 2nd time.

That's good. I thought I was going crazy.

Krugman is right about the general atmosphere of intolerance, and - as I have been saying for awhile now - the potential for political violence growing in North America. BUT, it starts with unhinged individuals acting, and will continue only when reasonable people start taking sides on that.

Generally - the atmosphere needs to be more civil, I agree, but it's another thing to blame something (Republicans/Musims/Heavy Metal/Dungeons & Dragons/Comic Books) for triggering acts of violence.

I don't like to blame the D&D crowd (or whoever) either.

However, "with great power comes great responsibility" is not just a bunch of words thrown into a comic book.

There's some truth to them and it would be nice if our politicians and media masters would heed them.

Instead, we get: well, since we have free speech I can be as much of an idiot as I want to and rather than pay any kind of price (embarrassment for being a clueless idiot, not get printed or on TV for being a clueless dolt etc) the person either gets their own TV show or is nominated to run as VP.

This is the kind of crap that society breeds when we gladly suffer these idiots.

[Michael Hardner]

So I get when someone points out words matter after someone is shot they should not say that but when you say things that may lead to violence that is all good.

I guess so. Political opportunism or perceived opportunism in the face of personal tragedies bothers me particularly.

[msj]

The link works for me, but the OP is just someone else's opinion; it's not backed by any facts to substantiate such claims.

Furthermore, in response to one of your earlier posts, "irresponsible" speech and terrorist attacks are hardly in the same league, and therefore not comparable.

Actually, you are responding to the very same post, not an "earlier post."

If you want to discuss it then lets.

If not, then I'll let it drop.

I prefer discussing things with Michael, anyway, as he is very civil.

[Michael Hardner]

This is the kind of crap that society breeds when we gladly suffer these idiots.

I agree that civil discourse is the goal. There is anger out there, though, and so that has to go somewhere. Relatively small events like yesterday's have the potential for creating huge cultural rifts, and new interactive media can make things worse too.

[punked]

I guess so. Political opportunism or perceived opportunism in the face of personal tragedies bothers me particularly.

Yah it might bother you but you know what bothers me? When someone encourages violent acts. So I will take Political opportunism over someone dying anyday guess that is what makes us different.

[Michael Hardner]

Yah it might bother you but you know what bothers me? When someone encourages violent acts. So I will take Political opportunism over someone dying anyday guess that is what makes us different.

Nobody seriously encourages violent acts. This is an outside perspective of another entity's mode of speech.

Like warmongers telling peacemongers that they're aiding the enemy.

[Guest American Woman]

No I am saying the samething as the Sheriff in AZ said today.

" Inflaming the American public by those who get paid to do that. It might be free speech but it does not come without consequences."

Except there's nothing to prove that there have been any consequences to what's been said. I'm assuming you're referring to Palin? I think the "consequences" of such nonsense should be people telling her where to stick her political aspirations, but I don't see any evidence at all that the shooting spree was in any way a consequence of what's been said.

BTW it might interest you to know Republican Leader Kyl said the Sheriff should not have said that today in his presser. So I get when someone points out words matter after someone is shot they should not say that but when you say things that may lead to violence that is all good.

K.

Perhaps he was pointing out that the shooting was not, as far as any evidence shows, the "consequence" of anything that's been said, and that insinuating that it was is the wrong thing to do; ie: also irresponsible. I highly doubt if this shooting would not have occurred but for the "inflaming of the public" that the sheriff and others are referring to.

Edited January 9, 2011 by American Woman

[punked]

Nobody seriously encourages violent acts. This is an outside perspective of another entity's mode of speech.

Like warmongers telling peacemongers that they're aiding the enemy.

Saying things like "don't retreat reload" and "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies. They're saying: My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around?"

Is encouraging violence. Words matter and people who have such high public personas have to choose them carefully. These aren't people who stand on a soap box in central park they are public figures who are respected.

[punked]

Except there's nothing to prove that there have been any consequences to what's been said. I'm assuming you're referring to Palin? I think the "consequences" of such nonsense should be people telling her where to stick her political aspirations, but I don't see any evidence at all that the shooting spree was in any way a consequence of what's been said.

Perhaps he was pointing out that the shooting was not, as far as any evidence shows, the "consequence" of anything that's been said, and that insinuating that it was is the wrong thing to do. I highly doubt if this shooting would not have occurred but for the "inflaming of the public" that the sheriff and others are referring to.

I am not saying this crazy man herd these words and said I'm going to shoot someone up today. I am saying those words lead to an atmosphere of violence. Words mean something.

[msj]

I agree that civil discourse is the goal. There is anger out there, though, and so that has to go somewhere. Relatively small events like yesterday's have the potential for creating huge cultural rifts, and new interactive media can make things worse too.

Agreed.

However, "small" events, like the killing of an archduke, can lead to Great things!

[Guest American Woman]

I am not saying this crazy man herd these words and said I'm going to shoot someone up today. I am saying those words lead to an atmosphere of violence. Words mean something.

Sure, words do mean something. But that truth is entirely different from saying, or insinuating, that this incident is the consequence of such words.

[punked]

Sure, words do mean something. But that truth is entirely different from saying, or insinuating, that this incident is the consequence of such words.

However those words are a part of a much bigger movement. Those words encourage that movement and because of that now is the time to say "those words have no place in American democracy."

Encouraging people to not retreat but to reload has not place in American democracy. Warning that if you vote for the "wrong person" that some Americans will take up arms has no place in American democracy. This incident today high lights that so the people who said those things should apologize for the use of those words.

Again I am not saying those words lead to this incident. I am saying this incident has high lighted that those solutions are unacceptable and anyone who help encourage this environment has had a role to play.

[Michael Hardner]

However those words are a part of a much bigger movement. Those words encourage that movement and because of that now is the time to say "those words have no place in American democracy."

Encouraging people to not retreat but to reload has not place in American democracy. Warning that if you vote for the "wrong person" that some Americans will take up arms has no place in American democracy. This incident today high lights that so the people who said those things should apologize for the use of those words.

Again I am not saying those words lead to this incident. I am saying this incident has high lighted that those solutions are unacceptable and anyone who help encourage this environment has had a role to play.

In any case, that's a metaphor. To say that somebody interpreted it literally is presumptuous... and without that interpretation you don't have much basis for telling people what they can and can't say.

[nicky10013]

Do you think you're sane ? If so, do you think a web blog could incite you to murder 6 people ?

A discussion of the boundaries of civil discourse is in bounds, but any discussion that ties this event to individual political parties, or recognizable figures of those parties is finger-pointing and not in itself civil or fair IMO.

I don't mean to tie any one individual or party in, however, I think it's an excellent opportunity for everyone around the table to take stock of the political situation and tone things down a bit.

[punked]

In any case, that's a metaphor. To say that somebody interpreted it literally is presumptuous... and without that interpretation you don't have much basis for telling people what they can and can't say.

I am not telling anyone what they can and can not say. In America there is free speech and as such they can say anything they want. However if and when something comes of that speech they get to accept what they said may have had a small roll in what happened.

In America you have the right to say if you don't win an election people should take up arms and I have the right to call you an idiot. That is the system. I don't want to censor anyone, I am pointing out words have meaning.

Edited January 9, 2011 by punked

[Michael Hardner]

I don't mean to tie any one individual or party in, however, I think it's an excellent opportunity for everyone around the table to take stock of the political situation and tone things down a bit.

Much agreed to this. I don't relate to a culturally-laden metaphor like "retreat and reload" (and why would I ?) but I don't think I should tell people of another culture what is appropriate.

That said, it seems to me that they would retreat from using that phrase for awhile, and wait awhile before reloading it - out of good taste.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not telling anyone what they can and can not say. I America there is free speech and as such they can say anything they want. However if and when something comes of that speech they get to accept what they said may have had a small roll in what happened.

Saying that the phrase has "no place in the American democracy" is saying that they shouldn't say it.

Again, the implication is no more heavy metal albums in case listeners could suicide themselves.

In America you have the right to say if you don't win an election people should take up arms and I have the right to call you an idiot. That is the system. I don't want to censor anyone, I am pointing out words have meaning.

You're not calling them an idiot, you're saying that the phrase shouldn't be said. That's akin to Christians saying that Muslim beliefs are incorrect... you're taking pot shots at the way another culture operates, assuming you're not an American Tea Partier...

Of course you have the freedom to say it, but you're wagging your figure at others: telling people how they should live, not coming up with an approach that we can all follow together.

[nicky10013]

Much agreed to this. I don't relate to a culturally-laden metaphor like "retreat and reload" (and why would I ?) but I don't think I should tell people of another culture what is appropriate.

That said, it seems to me that they would retreat from using that phrase for awhile, and wait awhile before reloading it - out of good taste.

Yup. I mean, it seems to me everyone is so angry over everything, especially in politics. While I'm not saying it happened in this event, in regards to the question you asked me earlier, I could see someone getting so angry over a blog post as to pick up a gun and do something crazy. The problem isn't whether I'm sane, it's whether the political climate incites someone not as balanced as me to go out and do exactly what you said. I think the usage of things like "don't retreat, reload" is apart of that but I view it more as a symptom of the anger rather than the cause of the anger. When I say I hope that everyone tones down a bit, I certainly don't just mean the language but the constant stirring of the shit pot everyone in politics and certainly the media is actively engaged in. It's hurt legislative efficiency, it's split the country and is reducing the US political system to nothing more than a sideshow carnival of who can say the most ridiculous thing the quickest.

[Guest American Woman]

However those words are a part of a much bigger movement. Those words encourage that movement and because of that now is the time to say "those words have no place in American democracy."

Encouraging people to not retreat but to reload has not place in American democracy. Warning that if you vote for the "wrong person" that some Americans will take up arms has no place in American democracy. This incident today high lights that so the people who said those things should apologize for the use of those words.

Again I am not saying those words lead to this incident. I am saying this incident has high lighted that those solutions are unacceptable and anyone who help encourage this environment has had a role to play.

There have been no such "warnings." No one has warned that Americans will take up arms if people vote for the wrong person; there absolutely is no movement to "take up arms." And since this incident apparently has nothing to do with those words, it highlights nothing about said words. The two are unrelated. How can this incident highlight the danger of said words if there is no tie to them?

[kimmy]

Surely you aren’t suggesting that the post from Daily Kos was anything other than an opening discussion about finding other candidates to run against the 42 Democrats bolded.

The point was obvious.

If the Tea Party ad with crosshairs on Giffords' district was an incitement to violence, then the Daily Kos article listing Giffords as a "target" and putting a bulls-eye on her district is clearly an incitement to violence as well.

Maybe before throwing grenades back and forth, people should calm down and recognize that metaphors invoking military, battle, war, and violence are commonplace in politics.

-k