What the fuck?
I've been waiting patiently for the last week for something to emerge suggesting that Loughner was in any way shape or form inspired by Palin, the Tea Party, or anything even remotely associated with conservative rhetoric. It hasn't emerged. All indications are that he is a crazy nonpartisan fuck who is broadly, vaguely, and incoherently anti...something or other. His specific beef against Giffords seems to be that she didn't answer a question for him once. He registered as an independent, and he is an atheist, which doesn't exactly put him in the conservative camp. His actions seem to have been inspired by nothing more specific than the voices in his head.
Could the political rhetoric we've been seeing inspire this kind of violence? I guess that it could, hypothetically. But it hasn't, at least not in this case.
Is conservative hate-mongering really more repulsive than the fact that Democrats are making political mileage out of senseless murders? I am an libertarian/liberal leaning atheist, but I am also capable of rational thought. This is bullshit.
Evolving Thoughts may shut down for a while
25 minutes ago
Posts
10 comments:
Agreed!
I think there is an arguement to made of the shooting being tied into a increase in hyper individualism in western society at moment.
I've been noticing a trend for many people to feel the law doesn't apply to them anymore because their not "normal". While there are a number of reasons for this, I'm very concerned by the number of things going on lately that have ordinary citizens using violence to achieve their goals.
The superhero inspired vigilantes strike me as the opposite end of this spectrum to the Arizonia incident (though the shooter in this case seems to be VERY insane... but than again anyone who thinks they are a superhero...). Both used violence to try and affect society around them... whether it was for "good" or "bad", violence is violence
Just my thoughts on the whole thing
"Is conservative hate-mongering really more repulsive than the fact that Democrats are making political mileage out of senseless murders?"
In one word .... yes. In the aftermath of the shootings it was feasible to discuss possibilities that political vitriol had contributed to the event. Things had gotten pretty horrible and everyone has gotten a big wake up call regardless of the shooters motive.
I'll never understand why Palin did not just admit that her symbolisms were in bad taste, but that they were not to blame. That her staff took those symbolisms down within minutes of the shootings and her failure to wait until after the funerals to deem herself a victime hurt her far worse than the original accusations.
I'm personally looking forward to more civil discourse by both sides in the future whether it incites madmen or not.
There is a big difference between pointing out that violent hyperbole discourages people from thinking rationally, and implying that the murder of a nine year old girl was connected to Sarah Palin's choice of icons. Did anyone consider Palin's icons in bad taste PRIOR to the shooting? Why is it only after a violent incident which all available evidence indicates was NOT inspired by Palin, that suddenly everyone is describing Palin's choice "disgusting" and "disgraceful" as though a connection between metaphorical crosshairs on a map and real cold-blooded murder was evident all along?
Violent hyperbole and symbolism is a part of American politics, and always has been. For example:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/obama-we-bring-a-gun/
Good thing no one got shot at that one.
Actually there were lots of comments about Palin's 'symbolism' when it first came out including comments from Congresswoman Giffords herself. It was there all along, it just took a horrible event to bring it to the forefront.
I'm not defending non-existant ties between the symbolism and recent events, but don't agree at all when you say questioning these ties is just as bad as some of the vitriol we have been seeing in recent months.
How is stating that it is in bad taste to use gun and bullet symbolism because it may cause people to take it seriously, worse than using that symbolism itself or stating that the president of the U.S. 'pals around with terrorists' or 'is not a valid citizen', or 'is a muslim who wants the country to fail', or to even refer to his attempt to do something to save us from our current healthcare nightmare as a socialist plot?
Fact is that this symbolism was put forth to bring about the 'removal' of certain individuals. This methodology is an absolute disgrace and hopefully it will all go away now along with the major perpetrators.
I'm definitely not questioning that rhetoric from the right has been more vitrolic, irrational, and destructive to rational debate than virtually anything from the left. I am also not questioning that the borderline hysteria at a liberal black man being seen as the antidote for a white conservative president hasn't completely unhinged a large subset of the American population who don't seem to want to acknowledge thier own racism. The right's use of scare tactics about socialized medicine have been absolutely loathsome, especially coming from people whose every medical need is provided for.
But there is a degree of hypocrisy and political opportunism in the way the shooting has been used to score points against Palin which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The exact same sort of hunting/militant language and visuals have been used by Democrats:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
That's politics, and so is connecting Palin's map with the shooting, something we KNOW is bullshit. There are valid arguments and concerns in this discussion, but there are also politicians smelling blood in the water, and irrationally and hypocritically chasing after a red herring like this stinks of political opportunism masked as legitimate concern. For me at least, it poisons they whole message of bringing reason into political discourse.
It's unfortunate that it took an event more or less unrelated to the situation to finally bring discussion about the impact of violent rhetoric to the forefront. It sure didn't happen when the cases were obviously linked to it occurred. Crazy right?
And unfortunately, there's been no change in the pattern of fear-mongering that drives conservative talk BS.
Fantastic.
-Nick
That's politics, and so is connecting Palin's map with the shooting, something we KNOW is bullshit. There are valid arguments and concerns in this discussion, but there are also politicians smelling blood in the water, and irrationally and hypocritically chasing after a red herring like this stinks of political opportunism masked as legitimate concern. For me at least, it poisons they whole message of bringing reason into political discourse.
Yes, I would agree with this. Politics as a whole does stink and it happens at all levels unfortunately. It is the nature of the realm of limited resources, in this case 'voters'.
I still don't agree that it has been entirely equal (your original claim), but let's just hope we have turned a corner. If the politicians start it up again maybe the people can smack em down. Problem is that we can be just as guilty.
Reset reset, I'm going home!
Yes, ride home to brick shithouse on your little low rider bicycle.
Private joke. Eveyone else ignore it.
Post a Comment