Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) shot

[North Country]

The idea that rhetoric can incite, but especially if it is about guns, doesn't make much sense to me.

If vitriolic language can incite violence, then vitriolic language can incite violence. People on the left are trying to rig the argument to somehow say "Yeah, our side says some crazy things...but they are not in the same position as those on the right, and they don't use the same language" which I don't see as a good point.

They are going to be people on both sides that use viotriolic rhetoric. But this is the most vitriolic rhetoric that I've seen coming from the two major parties (as opposed to commentators, bloggers, etc.) that I've seen in a while. You can argue that it doesn't incite violence, but it certainly doesn't contribute anything postive either. It would be nice if our politicians acted a little less like school children and a little more like rational adults, but perhaps that's asking too much of them.

[gcoll]

They are going to be people on both sides that use viotriolic rhetoric. But this is the most vitriolic rhetoric that I've seen coming from the two major parties (as opposed to commentators, bloggers, etc.) that I've seen in a while. You can argue that it doesn't incite violence, but it certainly doesn't contribute anything postive either. It would be nice if our politicians acted a little less like school children and a little more like rational adults, but perhaps that's asking too much of them.

Well. I haven't been around too long. And I've only been paying attention to politics for around a decade, so what do I have to compare it to? All I have is the Bush years, and it seems pretty similar.

But it seems hyperbolic to get too bent out of shape about the current political discourse. The KKK was once a legitimate political force in this country.

[cabernetluver]

But it seems hyperbolic to get too bent out of shape about the current political discourse. The KKK was once a legitimate political force in this country.

The idea that rhetoric can incite, but especially if it is about guns, doesn't make much sense to me.

If vitriolic language can incite violence, then vitriolic language can incite violence. People on the left are trying to rig the argument to somehow say "Yeah, our side says some crazy things...but they are not in the same position as those on the right, and they don't use the same language" which I don't see as a good point.

Your characterization of the KKK is partially wrong, and partially open to question. The use of the word legitimate is the part that is open to question. That has more to do with the specific meaning being attached to the word itself. The part about being a political force in the country is wrong, unless it is modified with limitations. It was a political force in very small parts of the country. Its membership was never a significant part of the total population. It had far more power as a terrorist organization than a political one. Unless you are using the term political to include terror, I disagree.

The topic of the second quote is the one that I have given considerable thought to, given our hashing and rehashing of it. I thought about the specific words and thoughts you have used and mine, and I think I might know where our disagreement is based.

I believe your position is based on a pure causal connection while mine is based in the more broad view of influence. The causal connection is rare and difficult to prove when it does exist. Influence is much easier to show. The amount that the influence in each case is subject to a sliding scale.

An example of influence v causal would be how some ordinary law abiding people change when they get caught up in the "mob mentality" of a riot. You can make the argument that the riot did not cause the behavior, and I would agree, but it would be equally correct to say absent the riot, the very same people would not have broken shop windows, looted etc. on their own

Krystallnacht is the epitome of a population gone mad. (IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS I AM NOT COMPARING THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA TO NAZIS, I AM ONLY USING THIS EXAMPLE AS THE STRONGEST EXAMPLE OF INFLUENCE I COULD THINK OF) The influence of the NAZI leadership over ordinary people, who at one time considered people their neighbors, and then considered these people enemies is historical fact. It is my position that overlooking the power of influence until it becomes a provable causul connection is a very low bar to hold leaders (both elected and not) to.

[gcoll]

Influence may be easier to show, but I always go back to Columbine, and other examples. In the wake of Columbine they tried to pin it on violent video games, and Marilyn Manson. Is it possible that violent video games, and Marilyn Manson's lyrics can influence a person? Sure. But it is not going to cause you to go shoot your classmates.

Your mob mentality example seems to have a direct causal link.

The Discovery Channel Hostage situation. Remember that? The guy was an environmentalist nutcase. He was "influenced" by Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth". I recall this, because when the situation was ongoing, the liberal blogs exploded with speculation about tea party involvement and when his writings included "anchor baby filth" they were anxious to blame the right wing immigration rhetoric. But the reason he disliked anchor babies is because he disliked all humans. He was an environmentalist nut, and listed Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth" as a movie he liked, I can't remember the exact language but I believe he may have claimed that that film "woke him up". It influenced him to some degree. First off, it is good to point out how this situation did NOT lead to any conversation about the rhetoric of environmentalists. Everyone was ok with just dismissing him as a nut, as was I, and as I still am. But on your criteria it is easy to pin "influence" on this scenario. My question is, so what? Al Gore's movie may have influenced this nutcase, but so what? And it is also important to note that the hostage taker was the only one who died in that situation.

[philab]

Influence may be easier to show, but I always go back to Columbine, and other examples. In the wake of Columbine they tried to pin it on violent video games, and Marilyn Manson. Is it possible that violent video games, and Marilyn Manson's lyrics can influence a person? Sure. But it is not going to cause you to go shoot your classmates.

Sure it could. That's the great thing about crazy: there's no limit to it. If someone is crazy, they are going to do crazy ****. Deciding to act out Grand Theft Auto III after listening to ICP is pretty crazy. So is taking out a Congresswoman after making some videos about new currencies. Trying to analyze the paths crazy went down is fool's play.

And that's precisely why the influence is irrelevant. The crazy is the driving force.

[cabernetluver]

Influence may be easier to show, but I always go back to Columbine, and other examples. In the wake of Columbine they tried to pin it on violent video games, and Marilyn Manson. Is it possible that violent video games, and Marilyn Manson's lyrics can influence a person? Sure. But it is not going to cause you to go shoot your classmates.

Your mob mentality example seems to have a direct causal link.

The Discovery Channel Hostage situation. Remember that? The guy was an environmentalist nutcase. He was "influenced" by Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth". I recall this, because when the situation was ongoing, the liberal blogs exploded with speculation about tea party involvement and when his writings included "anchor baby filth" they were anxious to blame the right wing immigration rhetoric. But the reason he disliked anchor babies is because he disliked all humans. He was an environmentalist nut, and listed Al Gore's "an inconvenient truth" as a movie he liked, I can't remember the exact language but I believe he may have claimed that that film "woke him up". It influenced him to some degree. First off, it is good to point out how this situation did NOT lead to any conversation about the rhetoric of environmentalists. Everyone was ok with just dismissing him as a nut, as was I, and as I still am. But on your criteria it is easy to pin "influence" on this scenario. My question is, so what? Al Gore's movie may have influenced this nutcase, but so what? And it is also important to note that the hostage taker was the only one who died in that situation.

The bottom line on the idea of influence, is that it envelopes a wide level power. It does not lend itself to saying this did or did not happen even though others were exposed to the same input. The power of influence can change both the source of the influence and the receptor of the influence.

It can be so strong, and the person can be so receptive, it mimics a causul link. If a less receptive person is exposed to the same input, it might seem more of an annoyance.

If in your mind you were to replay most of our conversations from this perspective (meaning what I intended) as opposed to your traditional meaning, I think you might see that in this we are both correct from our own unique point of view.

[gcoll]

Sure it could. That's the great thing about crazy: there's no limit to it. If someone is crazy, they are going to do crazy ****. Deciding to act out Grand Theft Auto III after listening to ICP is pretty crazy. So is taking out a Congresswoman after making some videos about new currencies. Trying to analyze the paths crazy went down is fool's play.

And that's precisely why the influence is irrelevant. The crazy is the driving force.

Well, I agree. But my point is that it's not going to drive a rational person into shooting his classmates.

As for whether it can motivate crazy people. I have no idea what motivates crazy people.

If in your mind you were to replay most of our conversations from this perspective (meaning what I intended) as opposed to your traditional meaning, I think you might see that in this we are both correct from our own unique point of view.

I'm not clear on what overall point you are getting at though.

[North Country]

Can't there be some middle ground between "Palin caused the shooting" and "Palin did no wrong"? I think most of us would agree that while Jared Loughner is responsible for his own actions that Sarah Palin's gunsight map and the accompanying war-like rhetoric were irresponsible.

[gcoll]

You're still conflating the two subjects by going for that "middle ground" though.

[b1e9a8r5s]

Can't there be some middle ground between "Palin caused the shooting" and "Palin did no wrong"? I think most of us would agree that while Jared Loughner is responsible for his own actions that Sarah Palin's gunsight map and the accompanying war-like rhetoric were irresponsible.

I somewhat agree, I would call the map unnecesary and unproductive. However, by lumping this debate in any fashion, is in fact implying that the map did have something to do with it.

[North Country]

You're still conflating the two subjects by going for that "middle ground" though.

Perhaps you're assuming that I am, but nowhere did I say the two things are related.

[North Country]

(Reuters) - Prosecutors have formally charged a victim of last week's Arizona shooting rampage with threatening a Tucson leader of the Tea Party political movement during the taping of an ABC News town hall-style television program.

James Eric Fuller, 63, who was taking part in the televised forum, was involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation on Saturday after he grew agitated, stood up to snap a picture of Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries and shouted, "You're dead," police said.

It just keeps getting better...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70F2IM20110116

[dbroncos78087]

It just keeps getting better...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70F2IM20110116

People dont learn, it is a damn shame, but they dont.

[gcoll]

Perhaps you're assuming that I am, but nowhere did I say the two things are related.

By bringing them both up in the same conversation, and suggesting there is some "middle ground", I would say they are being conflated.

People dont learn, it is a damn shame, but they dont.

That guy gave an interview to Democracy Now, where he blamed the shooting on Beck, Palin, and Boehner among others. It was clear from that interview the guy is a bit off.

Then he gets himself arrested for threatening a member of the Tea Party. A few points to made off of this.

He was about to be made a hero by the far left. He was already being trumpeted a bit by the liberal blogs. So his 6 interviews on MSNBC next week are probably canceled as a result of this. Which is a bit of a shame, because if this guy was given a platform to keep talking, he'd reveal himself to be the nut that he is. That might have been fun to watch.

The second point. Nobody is blaming the rhetoric for causing the threat!!! They can't be consistent about anything! In the wake of the shooting there was all this rhetoric blaming Palin, the Tea Party, and all these other conservatives for the shooting. This guy gives an interview expressing (in a more extreme manner) that same idea, and then he threatens a Tea Party leader at a town hall. And they don't make any connection whatsoever between the two things. He is being treated as a lone nut, which is how he should be treated, but it's not how they'd be treating him if he was a conservative.

[philab]

B
The second point. Nobody is blaming the rhetoric for causing the threat!!! They can't be consistent about anything! In the wake of the shooting there was all this rhetoric blaming Palin, the Tea Party, and all these other conservatives for the shooting. This guy gives an interview expressing (in a more extreme manner) that same idea, and then he threatens a Tea Party leader at a town hall. And they don't make any connection whatsoever between the two things. He is being treated as a lone nut, which is how he should be treated, but it's not how they'd be treating him if he was a conservative.

Are you really surprised? The type itching to blame a shooting on a third party's rhetoric certainly isn't above hypocrisy, no?

And to be fair, the media treats Palin, et al. as nuts also, just not lone nuts.