Is violent political rhetoric and imagery incitement?

bikerdruid said:
yes...along with 'alice in wonderland' and 'through the looking glass'.
very subversive stuff....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What, you don't think a commie or a nazi can also like ordinary fiction?

What on earth made you think that there's any sort of contradiction or even tension there?
 
Ziggurat said:
Obviously not, or it might be slightly amusing. This thread, though, is just sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...

and yet you just....can't...stay away!!!!! ;)

Ziggurat said:
And don't think that it's escaped my notice how one-sided your focus is either.
Click to expand...

unlike your labeling of the perp. as a "Communist Nazi-sympathizer".

(a bit of a contradiction, btw. tell some Russian veterans of WW2 that one can be a Communist & a Nazi-sympathizer and see what occurs)
 
Actually, Gifford herself linked Sarah Palin into this issue back in March 2010 during an interview on a break in after the vote on health care.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...terview-with-rep-giffords-discussing-violence

The mention is at about 2:20 in.

The accusation is that an environment was being created that inspires violence against political opponents. We now see that predicted violence. Argue it true or not, but the link has been made, and by the victim herself.

And politics, despite its desire to be labeled as science, is not.
 
Chaos said:
And this differs from Palin et al calling for people to "reload" and "fire an M-16" how?
Click to expand...

Wow, really? Palin's simple target imagery is slightly different than an order form the King of England in a time when extrajudicial death sentences were common and everything. Wow, actually they have nothing in common. Henry was the King of England and did hold such sway and his orders were law.

Sarah Palin's little hissy fits are not even close.

Let's be clear: I find Sarah Palin abhorrent and I am not trying to defend her. But the comparison is simply miles off.

Chaos said:
What Palin et al are saying is technically not a suggestions to commit murder, any more than "Nice place you have; would be shame if something... happened to it" is technically a threat.

These people are not morons. They know that calling Democrats traitors and unamerican and threats to society and "palling around with terrorists" isn´t simply a more pointed way of saying they disagree with people. They know that they are pushing certain buttons with people, and they know that these people are armed.

I´m NOT saying that it is their plan to get Democrats murdered... just that they are at a stage where, not having been able to get power through elections or lawsuits, they are ready to use ANY means to cause trouble to their enemies.
Click to expand...

So then what are you saying? Palin and the Right Nuts issued half-hearted or veiled Fatwas? Don't you think that they would understand the blowback they would get?

Calling someone un-American or a threat to society is a long way off from suggesting they should be violently offed. We both know that this is simplistic voter pandering and fear mongering.

I have not seen reasonable evidence that this attack was entirely politically motivated and every reliable source has not yet stated unambiguously what the motivation was. Linking the someone's use of crosshairs in political images and this violent act is stretching it a bit I think.
 
Kopji said:
Actually, Gifford herself linked Sarah Palin into this issue back in March 2010 during an interview on a break in after the vote on health care.
Click to expand...

Criticizing Palin for using inflammatory rhetoric is one thing. (Something that is also protected speech under the First Amendment, and something that I have also done myself plenty of times wrt Palin's outrageous rhetoric.)

Suggesting that Palin is guilty of inciting this incident (or any other act of violence) and should be held legally responsible is something else--something Gifford herself certainly did not do.


foxholeatheist said:
Chaos said:
And this differs from Palin et al calling for people to "reload" and "fire an M-16" how?
Click to expand...
Wow, really? Palin's simple target imagery is slightly different than an order form the King of England in a time when extrajudicial death sentences were common and everything.
Click to expand...

I'm not even a gun person, and even I frequently say things like "target", "bull's eye", "set your sights on", and so on.

Chaos, if you think Palin is culpable for this incident, do you think Jodie Foster was guilty of inciting Hinkley to attempt to assassinate Reagan? Really, this is mental illness. Where would you draw the line is restricting free speech to avoid triggering (oops! there I go again inciting violence!) violence in unstable maniacs?

I remember reading about a guy who committed murders because he thought the lyrics of Dylan's song "Isis" instructed him to do so.
 
Thunder said:
And apparently Miss Palin disagrees with you, as she pulled the website within hours of the shooting.
Click to expand...

Daily Kos removed their list putting Giffords "under a bullseye" and an old blog post describing her as "dead to me" as well.
 
Bikewer said:
Having seen the graphic with the "crosshairs", I must say it wasn't (to my way of thinking) an image designed to conjure up "gunsight" in my mind. Just a place marker not unlike what you'd see on Google Maps.
The few snippets from this particular lunatic's web posts that have surfaced indicate a typical paranoid schizophrenic bent; fear of the government, fear of the police, delusions that the government is not legitimate...
You don't need hate-filled rhetoric to set such people off; something always will, and it may be mundane indeed.
Click to expand...

Even after Palin bragged about hitting her bullseye targets, you still pretend it wasn't really crosshairs?
 
You people who say that Sarah Palin should be held accountable for this shooting have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Daily Kos removed their list putting Giffords "under a bullseye" and an old blog post describing her as "dead to me" as well.
Click to expand...

This is an attempt to rewrite history and it's right out of Karl Rove's Playbook: when they have something on you, accuse them of it.

No one has said that every single use of a bullseye or a target image, or the use of words like target and bullseyes are the issue. Those words are frequently used without the accompanying vitriol that suggests violence as the metaphor.

And if Palin's map was some innocent use of "surveyor's crosshairs", (which isn't what the symbol on a survey map means, BTW**), why didn't she just say so AT THE TIME? She could have feigned outrage over the false accusation that the map had gun crosshairs. But she didn't. Palin instead bragged about her love of guns and the appropriateness of her second amendment remedy metaphor.

This is no more than an attempt to show a false equivalency and pretend it isn't false.


** Topo map symbols: A circle with a cross in it is an "unmonumented" "principal point" and a circle with with crosshairs that extend past the circle as they did on Palin's map is a "Boundary Marker with tablet" which means there is a survey marker there or some similar marker.
 
dtugg said:
You people who say that Sarah Palin should be held accountable for this shooting have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Who are those people? Certainly not the majority of "we people". Speaking for myself and most of the posts I read, it is a straw man that people are claiming Palin is directly related to this specific homicide. We are saying Palin's and more than a few Tea Party members' rhetoric has passed the point of being harmless. It is dangerous and unnecessary.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Who are those people? Certainly not the majority of "we people". Speaking for myself and most of the posts I read, it is a straw man that people are claiming Palin is directly related to this specific homicide. We are saying Palin's and more than a few Tea Party members' rhetoric has passed the point of being harmless. It is dangerous and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

The OP for starters. If the statement doesn't apply to you, then you don't need to worry about it.
 
Sarah Palin Hanged in Effigy in Front of West Hollywood Home

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The mayor of West Hollywood has condemned a Halloween display resembling Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose.
A Halloween display resembling Sarah Palin hanging in West Hollywood.

A Halloween display resembling Sarah Palin hanging in West Hollywood.

The life-size doll with a white noose around its neck is outfitted to look like Palin -- with a beehive wig, glasses and a red business suit.

It hangs in front of the North Orange Grove Avenue house of the display's creator, Chad Michael Morrisette, who also put up a depiction of Republican presidential candidate John McCain engulfed in flames.
Click to expand...

I condemn the routine use of hateful rhetoric by the liberal left in the United States and the implicit approval of violence against women that displays like this promote.
 
foxholeatheist said:
Wow, really? Palin's simple target imagery is slightly different than an order form the King of England in a time when extrajudicial death sentences were common and everything. Wow, actually they have nothing in common. Henry was the King of England and did hold such sway and his orders were law.

Sarah Palin's little hissy fits are not even close.
Click to expand...

You haven´t been listening to Republicans these last two years or so, or have you? If you had, you´d have noticed that whole "screw elections, there´s got to be some other way to get rid of those leftists" vibe they´ve been giving off. It is very very clear that Palin et al piss on the law if the law is not to their advantage; to the credit of your country, cannot yet simply ignore the law in most cases, but their rhetoric makes it very clear they do not consider the law anything but an impediment.

Let's be clear: I find Sarah Palin abhorrent and I am not trying to defend her. But the comparison is simply miles off.



So then what are you saying? Palin and the Right Nuts issued half-hearted or veiled Fatwas? Don't you think that they would understand the blowback they would get?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Fatwa is a good comparison.

Calling someone un-American or a threat to society is a long way off from suggesting they should be violently offed. We both know that this is simplistic voter pandering and fear mongering.
Click to expand...

If the President and the Democrats in congress actually WERE traitors, in league with the enemy, and so on, and the institutions in charge of dealing with that sort of thing were in league with them, wouldn´t you think real patriots would try to do something about it? And wouldn´t, in such a case, doing something about it mean taking refuge in violence, since nothing else works?

So, in a country full of self-appointed patriots which are armed to the teeth, if you proclaim the government traitors, you expect patriots to believe you and take action against the government.

I have not seen reasonable evidence that this attack was entirely politically motivated and every reliable source has not yet stated unambiguously what the motivation was. Linking the someone's use of crosshairs in political images and this violent act is stretching it a bit I think.
Click to expand...

Forget that strawman. It isn´t just the crosshairs. It´s years´ worth of right-wing rhetoric portraying democrats as everything a lot of Americans own guns for.
 
All I know is after my Shooting Spree I shall tell the police it was because Sarah Palin told me to bring a gun and get in their faces and to punish our enemies.

...oh,wait.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I condemn the routine use of hateful rhetoric by the liberal left in the United States and the implicit approval of violence against women that displays like this promote.
Click to expand...

i join you in your condemnation of this disgusting act.

will you join ME in my condemnation of violent rhetoric against all political foks, including Democrats?
 
dtugg said:
You people who say that Sarah Palin should be held accountable for this shooting have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
Click to expand...

what you mean "you people"?

please name a member here who wants Palin charged with murder and attempted assassination.
 
There are a lot of terms associated with shooting that are part of the perfectly normal everyday lexicon. "Hitting the mark", "targeting", "in my sights", "pull the trigger", "hang-fire", "flash in the pan", "on target"...... One could go on and on.
Some of these date to medieval times when they were used in a context for archery...
Again, I don't think we can blame such things for setting off insane persons.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No one has said that every single use of a bullseye or a target image, or the use of words like target and bullseyes are the issue. Those words are frequently used without the accompanying vitriol that suggests violence as the metaphor.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. Those are not *true* bullseyes.
 
Thunder said:
and what about a political event where folks shoot photos of a candidate's opponent with a fully-auto M16?

should that be considered incitement? this actually did occur.
Click to expand...

This would be incitement but do you have evidence that this did happen? OR was advertised as such even if it didn't happen.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
We are saying Palin's and more than a few Tea Party members' rhetoric has passed the point of being harmless. It is dangerous and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Chaos said:
It´s years´ worth of right-wing rhetoric portraying democrats as everything a lot of Americans own guns for.
Click to expand...
You mean like all the signs and talk during Bush's term calling for his hanging, assassination, and execution?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No one has said that every single use of a bullseye or a target image, or the use of words like target and bullseyes are the issue. Those words are frequently used without the accompanying vitriol that suggests violence as the metaphor.
Click to expand...
Like "behind enemy lines"?

BP_0405_heartland1.gif
 
Thunder said:
do you ever read all the posts in a thread, or conveniently skip ones that don't correspond to your goal?
Click to expand...
Can you quote the part where the target was a picture of Gifford? Because that is in fact your claim:

Thunder said:
and what about a political event where folks shoot photos of a candidate's opponent with a fully-auto M16?

should that be considered incitement? this actually did occur.
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
Can you quote the part where the target was a picture of Gifford? Because that is in fact your claim:
Click to expand...

Once again, I shall ask you:

do you ever read all the posts of a thread..including the ones that say:

"actually, that element is not clear".

or did you indeed read that..and are just trolling?
 
Thunder said:
um...

actually...that element is not clear.
Click to expand...

Maybe there was such an event, maybe there wasn't but someone posted that as an idea in a thread and it was assumed to be true. More likely it was a shooting outing with this man.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Maybe there was such an event, maybe there wasn't but someone posted that as an idea in a thread and it was assumed to be true. More likely it was a shooting outing with this man.
Click to expand...

maybe there was such an event?

both articles stated the event occured. but its not clear if the target was a face of Gifford or not.
 
Thunder said:
is it incitement to have a map of the USA with gunsight crosshairs all over the country, with each crosshair being linked to a Congressmen's name?
Click to expand...

And then there was Sharron Angle's call for "second amendment remedies", as a responce to government tyranny and her call for Harry Reid to be "taken out." :eye-poppi

 
Thunder said:
these targets have no names attached to them.

Palin's targets, did. Before she pulled the site, out of fear and guilt.
Click to expand...

So hers had pictures because she was "targeting" specific candidates she thought could be beat.
Could a crazy person take that to mean shoot someone , yes but so could the other graphic.

How do you pretend to know she pulled them out of fear? or guilt?
 
Thunder said:
maybe there was such an event?

both articles stated the event occured. but its not clear if the target was a face of Gifford or not.
Click to expand...

An event as the won you stated happened where people went and shot at targets of Gifford. Did you really misunderstand what I meant?
 
I am thinking to myself in other countries they are laughing at us twenty four hours a day and I’m thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. What is happening in this country? What is happening?
- Actor/Activist Alec Baldwin, in an appearance on Conan O'Brien in 1998

I condemn the violent hate speech commonly used by the liberal left. Calling for the assassination of political opponents and the murder of their families is par for the course in Somalia, Venezuela and Saddam Era Iraq, but not in the worlds oldest modern democracy.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I condemn the violent hate speech commonly used by the liberal left. Calling for the assassination of political opponents and the murder of their families is par for the course in Somalia, Venezuela and Saddam Era Iraq, but not in the worlds oldest modern democracy.
Click to expand...

I support your call for the end of violent and revolutionary rhetoric in American society. Will you also support my call for and end to such statements and imagery, against ALL Americans, regardless of them being Left or Right, Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican?


..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom