Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
not a trick question... in your opinion, what are the substantive issues we should be discussing here?
|
I hope you don't mind if I butt in:
• We should be discussing whether violence has a place within political discourse.
Should any politician or political commentator of any stripe use phrasing, imagery, or innuendo that pertains to violence?
In the aftermath of this shooting, I think there is an opportunity to re-evaluate how we contextualize or frame political discourse and rallying.
Is it acceptable to use images of cross-hairs or state it's time to "lock & load" or "reload" to rally people politically? Should politics not be a peaceful process? Should it not be carried out without the threat—or even hint—of violence? Giffords mentioned that Palin had gone too far with her targeting theme. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of the gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize there a consequences to that action."
Dammit, Americans are big on their football and basketball. What the fuck is wrong with sports metaphors? Not powerful enough? Not sensational enough?