Willravel

Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is not our president.
Barack Obama is a socialist.
Barack Obama has nationalized 51% of the economy.
Obama's healthcare reform includes death panels.
President Obama is putting in place reeducation camps in order to brainwash children into being politically correct.
President Obama is a fascist.
Obama is the antichrist.
President Obama hates white people.

That's just President Obama. There are worse claims coming from mainstream sources on everyone from George Soros to Congressional Democrats. They alone aren't the end of it, though. Here is a page which marks every incident of right-wing violence and attempted violence, including murders, over a 6 month period between March and September of 2010. Vandalism, threats of violence, death threats, and even instances of murder are becoming more and more common. Congressional death threats rose by 300% in 2010 and that trend is projected to continue. "Patriot" groups and militias are surging in numbers, and populist anger has engulfed an entire political spectrum.

There's violence in the vitriol. We're fast approaching something terrible and it may be too late to stop it.

The discussion is this: why does such discourse exist? What is it's intended purpose? What are the possible ramifications of increasingly extremist language being married with violent and revolutionary sentiment and imagery? Is the next Tim McVeigh just around the corner? What can be done to slow or stop this?

Tully Mars

I remember when I went home (Oregon) last time some guy in Washington state was planing to kill Sen. Maury. According to him (or at least his defense) it was due to the stuff Beck told him through he TV talking machine.

Beck's douche. I often wonder if this will continue until we have another major event like Ok. City.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

filtherton

The key thing to note is that even if some asshole reads between the lines and kills a bunch of people the folks who use this type of rhetoric to make money or consolidate political power will always just fall back on the "it's not my fault that crazy people take me seriously".

This type of rhetoric and climate don't create a sufficient condition for atrocities like Bosnia or Rwanda to occur, but they are a necessary condition.

Willravel

"Second Amendment remedies", "Don't retreat, reload", "It really is time for Americans to take up pitchforks.", and one of the worst, "Let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it."

I don't understand how people can pretend like these statements aren't textbook examples of violent rhetoric. We saw Palin just yesterday walk back on using gun symbolism in relating to rival districts, making the shooting somehow about her being victimized. Why is it that this stuff isn't met with universal rebuke? Are we so entrenched that this stuff is given a pass because to admit it would be like losing the game to the other guys?

Tully Mars

Beck's a good Mormon. I'm sure he was just having a nightmare while awake or some such nonsense.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Baraka_Guru

I think the way to diffuse this is to get away from the idea that the Republican/Tea Party way is the American way and what the Democrats do isn't. The rhetoric on the right—despite whether it has a violent theme or not—is most dangerous when it seeks to paint the Democrat way and liberalism as contrary to American values, as unconstitutional, or, at worst, as treasonous.

They've been working away at this for years now. The danger in it is that if enough people start to believe it's true, certain right-wing groups may find themselves no longer comfortable with a peaceful political process lest liberalism destroy the republic.

This, despite the fact that liberalism helped build the republic and currently helps preserve it. The right is currently at work convincing people that this is no longer the case. They want people to believe that liberalism is dangerous and destructive.

That has to stop.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

There's just too many people making too money spreading this BS for it to stop at this point. When people hold signs that call for violence and then claim they don't mean what they say we've probably pasted the point of return.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

kriswest

Its not the politicians and what they say. Its the media doing a real good job at taking things out of context and twisting it to their ends. Out of a 7 minute speech, the media has taken 1 second , 2 words and created a firestorm through their expert ability to manipulate the public. they have taken one thing from a group of things and twisted it. Gunsights out of everything else was chosen and twisted. It was not even real gunsights. Heck, I have rifles with scopes and it sure does not look like that, they actually look more like map sights but, that does not provoke emotions now does it?. Ratings, money, power, control. They used to just report events now they tell us what to think and by golly most people do just that. They think what the media wants them to think.

Tully Mars

1 maybe 2 seconds? And out of context? Ummm-

Beck must talk really fast and your definition of context is way different then mine.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Baraka_Guru

Well, Beck isn't a politician, which is what kriswest was referring to. But your point is well taken, Tully, as Beck is a part of the media system that focuses on the political environment.

However, I don't buy the argument that the media merely manipulates the message about what the Republicans are doing. First, it would have to be an elaborate orchestration of media output—a conspiracy—for this to be maintained, and the media system, as high-tech and sophisticated as it is, doesn't have the capacity to do this, and especially not over a span of years—and certainly not across political stances. You can find overwhelming evidence from both left-leaning and right-leaning media outlets—both domestic and foreign—regarding the reporting and analysis of the Republican penchant for demonizing liberalism.

This isn't just commentators or pundits. Politicians do it too. This is about making liberalism and the Democratic party un-American, unpatriotic, and unconstitutional—a threat to America.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

Politician-

noun

a person who is active in party politics.

I disagree Beck is indeed a politician. If he's not "active in party politics" I'm a ballet dancer.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Baraka_Guru

Okay, but he's not directly involved in forming public policy. But like I said, your point is well taken. He's definitely a part of the political environment.

---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

Case in point: GOP Calling ObamaCare 'Government Takeover' of Health Care Is Biggest Lie of Year, Touts ABC's 'Nightline'; | NewsBusters.org

Here we have Republicans calling "Obamacare" (sometimes known as the PPACA) a "government takeover."

Um...wtf?

It's not even a single-payer system. There is no public option. It's everything but a government takeover. It was likely set up this way to avoid the GOP cries of a takeover.... No hope for that.

And in case you're wondering... "government takeover" is a synonym for "socialization"—read: "the Democrats are socializing health care; therefore this thing the Democrats are doing is socialism."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

I'd say he's certainly involved in trying to form public policy. But the definition of politician doesn't state one must be involved in forming public policy.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Baraka_Guru

I think the distinction interesting though. We can easily try to claim that it's only the media and not elected officials that are the problem. I wanted to address this to suggest that it's the elected officials too.

And I believe that many people use the word politician to imply elected officials.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

I understand what your saying and the point you're attempting to make. I'm simply pointing out that a person does not have to be an elected official to be a "politician."

I believe many people use the word politician without knowing what the word means.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Baraka_Guru

That's why it's always good to unpack these things when having a discussion about them. So without getting caught up on it, I guess my ultimate point is that it's not just the media commentators/pundits/faux journalists that are doing this. It's also elected officials. I wanted to make that clear.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

I understand that and I think my ultimate point was people are often discussing these topics without really understanding the complete concept and, at times, the definition of the basic terms. I read your point about health care reform and I think it's spot on. People are misusing terms/words and then utilizing that to demonize other people, their actions or their ideas. Too many people get their info, right and left, spoon fed to them by sound bites shot at them by people getting paid a pile of cash to spin an agenda. And, I believe, most people have no idea just how big is that pile of cash. Olbermann, for example, signed a 4 year deal worth 30million dollars. So, and I don't know the details (these things are always wrapped up with this much now, signing bonus etc...) roughly 15 million a year. I haven't checked lately but Rush was making many times that amount years ago. My point is these people are paid a huge amount to push an agenda at their audience. They are not getting paid to report fact, tell you the truth or even be honest. In fact if they did tell their audience the absolute truth they'd likely lose ratings and money. I used to watch Keith when I saw it was on but his "Special Comment" went from being a once and while rant after a major event to a nightly tirade. I turned him on one night and as I listened I thought "fuck this guy's not really any different, or not much different, then Rush, Beck or Hannity. He's just slinging mud in the other direction. Fuck this, I'm going to go walk my dogs on the beach and watch the sunset." Since then I mostly use non-US based sites for my national and international news, BBC, CTV etc... Their take on things doesn't seem as clouded to me.

Not only do people need to tone it down they need to be better informed on, at times even on the most basic of, political terms, ideas and concepts. I bet if the average voter took an 8th grade social studies tests regarding politics they'd fail miserably. The very same people who would fail that test have no problem telling you you're not informed or you should get more informed. They'll tell you it's about conviction, speaking from the heart, sticking to principles, having common sense. Blah, blah, blah. And then go on a rant about Obama being a socialist or a fucking Nazi. Really you think Obama is like Hitler and I'm the one that needs an education? You know who was like Hitler? Hitler was like Hitler and there hasn't been anyone really like that, certainly not in US politics, since he shot himself 65 years ago. Bush wasn't like Hitler, Obama, Cheney, Pelosi... none of them are anything like Hitler and it's pretty insulting to folks who lost family members due to Hitler to compare anyone to him. People just are not that well informed which would not be a huge problem if not for the fact they’ve convinced themselves they are.

This brings me back to your point about the health care reform situation and how people have ended up calling it something it clearly is not. For some time now there’s been a real push to get back to grass roots (like every grass roots movement was brilliant, sigh) and get rid of these “career politicians.” To get common folk with common sense put in charge of things. Bush Jr. ran in 2000 as a “Washington outsider.” Hell, the man’s father was vice President for 8yrs and then President for 4, how much more “inside Washington” can you get then having your own father be the President? I know I heard him more then once talk about getting rid of “these career type politicians.” He was a state Governor for 4 or 5 yrs when he said that. If I hired an electrician and asked him how long he’d been an electrician and his answer was “5 years” I’d think he was a career electrician, wouldn’t you? We have career politicians calling for the end of having career politicians in office while their running for re-election or office. I find that just fucking ridiculous. Like calling for elite people or career politicians to be ousted from office is always a good thing. People calling for the end of having elite people running things should look up the word elite.

Blah, all this talk about people being "elites" and that being bad is basically dishonest. It's a play to the base move. It's asking “who would you rather have a beer with" all over again and tying that answer to who would you prefer to have running the country. How are those two things related? It's basically a "bait and switch." And the average "common sense" US voter keeps falling for it. Would you choose your doctor or auto mechanic based on whether you'd like to share a few laughs or beverage with them? Or would you prefer someone well trained regarding the subject in question? When they trash on the "elites" what I think they're really saying is well educated people are not to be trusted or are somehow less desirable then just "common folk, with common sense." You know people just like you and your neighbors or your friends. I like my friends and, when I lived in the US, knew almost all my neighbors and frankly I don't want most of them running the government. Most of them are fine people but, like me, do not have the knowledge base it would take to correct the situation we find ourselves in today.

The world is complicated. In same way you can no longer go out to your car, lift the hood and quickly make sense of how it works. You need to study it and understand it to make any beneficial corrections. Understanding the economy, environment, interstate commerce, foreign policy and affairs etc… takes more than common sense. It takes education. That education can come from self research or an Ivy League school. Where you obtain it isn’t rather important but having it is certainly important.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ottopilot

Will, in considering the case for the perceived violent speech of pundants causing individuals to potentially act out violently, shouldn't these "Minority Report" scenarios also consider the volume of death-threats regularly made against the individuals and groups you have singled out? Which liberal "voices" motivate their potential violence? ... and who must we blame, censor, and deminish the free speech of to prevent "something" from maybe happening some day in the possible future? Didn't one of the AZ shooting victims just threaten a TEA Party member by pointing to his picture and yelling "you're dead!" Who is responsible? It's obviously not his own responsibility with all the leftist hate-speech out there about the "tea-baggers" and their darn constitution. It's all become so ridiculous.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Willravel

So you're simply unwilling to rebuke an on-air fantasy about strangling Michael Moore to death. That's totally acceptable to you, not as a free speech issue, as neither of us are the government, but rather as acceptable behavior.

Interesting to know.

ottopilot

I can't comment on the Michael Moore issue without reading a full transcript or seeing the complete episode. True or not... are you not concerned for all persons threatened with potentially violent speech... or only those cases that support (with mostly hear-say) your passioned interests? Remember that a play was written about assassinating W? If you believe that violent speech spawns real violence, then doesn't partisanship cheapen the argument?

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Tully Mars

I hope they throw the book at the Az man who made the threatening remarks. I don't care what side you're on violent, threatening hate filled speech is not acceptable.

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

You can't comment on the statement made by Beck? It's on his web page, the full transcript is there if you care to read it. If he posts it on his web site I'm not sure you say it's hearsay.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Willravel

What context are you imagining in which fantasizing about strangling Michael Moore to death is acceptable? People have recordings of Beck's radio show when he said this all over the internet. Here is a copy:
So you're simply unwilling to rebuke an on-air fantasy about strangling Michael Moore to death? That's totally acceptable to you, not as a free speech issue, as neither of us are the government, but rather as acceptable behavior?

ottopilot

fair enough... I'll absolutely look at it. If he did what you say... as you say, then I'm on-board regarding Beck.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

If you saw my reply to Tully, I said I will take a look. I'm on my cell-phone, so I'll look when I get home. If true about Beck's on-air Michael Moore fantasy I'll say "that's terrible" and "how irresponsible". Let's pretend that IS the case... "that's terrible" and "how irresponsible", says otto. And I would not approve of such speech.

Getting back to my point... I asked where do you stand on violent speech in general, or does only count when it comes from the right? They could have used a fictional president for the assassination play I mentioned, but they used the name of a sitting president. But wait.. is W dead? Is Michael Moore dead? And with his (MM) considerable means, has he made an attempt to take civil action against Beck or launch a campaign to discredit Beck? Where does all this hate come from? I don't like it either. But what makes your argument appear suspect is the obvious slant against the right when the evidence just doesn't support your one-sided view. If you're interested in solving a problem, perhaps polarizing the problem isn't the best place to start.


And one more thought.... is anger ever justified?

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

Oh no - not Clint Eastwood and CNN's Bill Hemmer too!

Just something I found while trying to locate a complete transcript of the Glenn Beck wants to kill Michael Moore episode from 2005. I'll keep looking.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Willravel

Thank you for your honesty. I have similarly troubling statements from Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Bachmann, Savage, Angle, and a host of others on the right, if you're interested. That's the point of the thread. There's too much in the discourse that has nothing to do with honest opinion and everything to do with violence against people who disagree with you.
It's abhorrent no matter where it's coming from and deserving of strong rebuke. I was furious with Eric Fuller, one of the 19 shoot victims, for his outburst at the Tucson Tea Party gathering. He clearly was furious and let it out in an extremely inappropriate way. I'm glad he's subsequently apologized publicly. What happened to him was truly tragic and he's deserving of our sympathies, but his veiled threat against Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries was an unacceptable response. Come to think of it, Keith Olbermann recently apologized for past comments that might have been needlessly inflammatory. I believe his quote was, “violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy.” I certainly agree with that sentiment.
Was there a movie version done? I remember watching a fake documentary on the assassination of George Bush a few years ago. It was not at all what I expected. In the story, the country came together to mourn the President and to condemn the gunman, the father of a dead soldier. It wasn't a murderous fantasy like Glenn Beck above, but rather served primarily as a dramatic warning to would be assassins. In other words, it's not the same thing by a long shot. Inappropriate pun not intended.
This line is a little too convenient when it comes from the right, that somehow both sides share equal responsibility in the current climate of outrageous lies and violent rhetoric. No such balance exists in reality, and suggesting that it does exist only serves to stop a real solution which involves conservatives standing up to their bullies. There's no one on the left like Beck, Palin, Hannity, or Savage. They don't exist. The left is not neck-deep in gun culture and revolutionary language, even at the peak of the Bush administration. Liberals aren't bringing bombs or knives or whatever the equivalent of guns might be to our political get togethers.

"I'll get right to fixing things once it doesn't seem like my side enjoys the vast majority of the blame." Really?

Cynthetiq

I think that it is an important part of our democracy.

If that kind of rhetoric or language isn't allowed or frowned upon by society, then the 2nd Amendment has no teeth to it.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams saying, "To attain all this (universal republicanism), however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation." - September 4, 1823

We cringe when people die. We cringe when it becomes reality. When the words turn into action and something actually changes in the world to make a new day that is different than "same shit, different day."

I say this because it is important to understand when the right time is to take up arms against your country, then the right time is to take action against an oppressor. It just isn't always the right time because then nothing happens, nothing may change, and that action may have been in vain.

This wasn't an action to start a change, it was simply a person who had their own agenda and issues. It was not the conspiracy of the right or the left. It wasn't the doings of the liberal or conservative media.

The media is it's own machine. It only manufactures what is consumed. If it is not consumed it changes it's product to something that does.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

What if one member of TFP posted that he or she was fantasizing about strangling another member, going into brutal detail? Would this simply be necessary discourse, a dissidence adding to the diverse tapestry of our community? Or would it be unwelcome because it disrupts social order but serves no beneficial purpose? Wouldn't you ban such a person, or at least issue a strong warning (or rebuke, if you will)?

Cynthetiq

Yes, it would be removed because it would be no different than any trolling post.

This is not public airwaves. This is not public space. It is not the same.

This space is not a democratic space. This it not the equivalent.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

scout

All the distasteful and harmful discourse isn't limited to the right side of the aisle. To act or believe it does is simply sticking your head in the sand. Both sides really need to take a step back and see where we can meet in the middle on most issues rather than the current status quo of extremism and scare tactics.

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

Tully Mars

I do not believe threatening to kill people if you do not get your way politically is an important part of any democracy.

---------- Post added at 06:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------

I watched that Oscar show and when Eastwood first said he'd kill Moore if Moore showed up at his door I kind of chuckled. He said it, he had a small smirk on his face, I thought he was playing around. Then, if I remember correctly Moore shouted something from the audience and Eastwood stated something to the effect of "I'm not kidding." I was a little taken aback and thought is he really saying he'd kill the guy? Seemed very surreal to me. If Clint seriously believes in violent threats I do not respect him much though the "Outlaw Jose Wales" will always be one of my favorite westerns.

Also the Beck transcript you're looking for is from 2007. I'll go look for it again a little later if I get a chance. But is there some reason to put less weight on it if it was said 2, 4, 6 or even 8 years ago?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Cynthetiq

I'd say that if Will was to be truly fair, he would dig up the same kinds of threads/posts about Bush that were posted here. There were plenty of them.

Tully, I think it is important because it allows one to see clearly the intention and lunacy of the group. If they do not speak of such things and just carry them out it secrecy and conspiracy, it doesn't help people decide if it is the right course of action. It is more of the same rhetoric and political activity, this time with just violence included.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

i dont think there is a "problem of violent discourse" in general except for folk on the right who are looking to shirk responsibility for their particular gun-toting cross-hair training real-american-defending homespun backwater neo-fascist speak.

in part because the gun-waving cross-hair-training thinking about mowing down your adversary language of the right has spilled into the space of continuous repetition---so it's not a matter of simple sentences taken in isolation, but rather of a dominant discourse in the american political landscape---for better or worse (to my mind, its entirely for the worse) that is repeated and repeated and so operates at the level of conditioning mechanism. not pavlovian style--something lighter, more in the range of cognitive parameter shaping when thinking about intermediate or experience-distant phenomena (an old poli-sci definition of politics is thinking about the experience-distant; conservo-rhetoric is at its more obviously narcissistic when you think about politics that way spreading questions of individual identity and gun pointing all over the world...)

that difference if discursive register is something the right collectively has to avoid addressing, so rather than take it on, they are trying lately to pretend that this is some metaphysical question about whether you like sentence a which involves some battle metaphor spoken by someone the right likes better than sentence b with very similar langauge pulled from a paperback autogiography published in 1969 written by someone the right treats as a ritualized signifier for red-baiting purposes.(*)



(*) as an extreme instance....this conservo-position would be like saying that the role of discourse in shaping the genocide in rwanda in 1994 had nothing to do with saturation radio repetition of statements about the evil tutsi and suggestions that the real rwandais were the hutu and that removing the tutsi contaminant was a good idea....instead conservative "thinking" would have to think that all statements in all registers involving anything like that structure are equivalent (crackhead thinking) and their implications a matter of how they are said by individuals (a notion that follows in principle from the refusal of the post-thatcherite right to admit that there is a society) and recieved by individuals, as if all situations are the same. this position is obviously worthless when it comes to trying to understand rwanda because it excludes the fundamental role of radio in triggering and directing the genocide. period.

i mention this example in order to talk about a situation in which similar language in a parallel media environment had very very bad outcomes indeed in order to force the recognition that access to/control of a dominant repetition-based media environment is fundamental as a communicative situation and that attempting to erase that by resorting to fake metaphysical equivalences is a fools game.

i am not comparing the poisonous political context of aridzona to rwanda. i am merely talking about an extreme example, a situation in which this kind of language in this kind of context resulted in very very very bad outcomes.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I find it interesting that when we analyze the right-wing rhetoric for its problems of violence, red-baiting, and the demonization of liberalism, the response is often: "what about the left, huh?"

Sure.

First, we're looking at the right. Why not address what the right is doing? Why look left?

Second, the left (or centre-left, I should say) doesn't tend to have this same problem.

In Hannity's interview of Palin last night, the best examples (ostensibly) that they came up with regarding the "violent left-wing rhetoric" were more than two years old and came from a pop star, a stand-up comedian, and an amateur web comic. Nothing screamed more "grasping at straws" than that part of the interview. (And, as you can imagine, it wasn't a very interesting interview. It seemed more of an advertorial than an interview. I'm not sure any new information was obtained, at least not anything that you wouldn't otherwise predicted.)

I know that the Democrats just as much as the Republicans have been known to use maps with targets, "war boards," etc., during campaigns. If that was the limit of Palin's themes, then it would be a different story. It's not.

If you can't see that the limits of Palin's (and Republicans' and Tea Partiers') discourse goes beyond the typical liberal, then I don't know what else to tell you. It's right there.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

Could you possible rephrase or clarify this? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.

---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 AM ----------

I think we look left because it's important to look at the whole picture and understand it's not just one sided when it comes to violent, threatening speech. A man, as pointed out above, was arrested in Az. for making threats directed at the tea party.

Groups like ELF have been fire bombing businesses and research facilities they don't like for years. I think there's more groups on the right and they have national TV and radio outlets for their hate speech so you hear more about it. But the left has it's own lunatics.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Baraka_Guru

I'm not saying to not ever look left. I'm simply wondering why that's the stock answer when we examine the right. It's classic tu quoque.

Also, I find that people tend to have problems with looking at the big picture. Blame it on polarization perhaps. People also tend to think in binary opposites, which makes looking at the big picture futile.

We can examine the left if you want. But can we not look at the right without people deflecting us to the left?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

again, i think that to pretend that what's at issue here is some abstract pseudo-ethical problem with violence in political discourse in general is to allow the right to continue doing exactly as it's doing with its poujadiste wing....to exclude the context of utterances, to exclude the mechanisms of dissemination and the effects of mass media repetition is to render the question of consequence meaningless because you've erased the delivery system and that system is a very considerable aspect of the problem.


it's not as though there isn't a tradition of revolutionary rhetoric that's particular to the left, and were we in a situation where metaphysical considerations were of interest to the exclusion of everything else (in which case, position AND delivery system AND reception all would be excluded entirely so that conservatives in the united states can avoid questions that follow from the functioning of the media apparatus that tells them what their opinions are) maybe there's be some tisk tisk tisk that would result....but it's a meaningless exercise.

this is not an abstract situation: this is a dominant media apparatus in the united states....


btw discourse analysis generally centers on determining regularities across an ideological form---but it doesn't work to the exclusion of medium. only american conservatives who are looking to deflect questions do that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Regardless, the way TFP is run is a reflection of how the staff, yourself included, understand the role of authority in a society or community. If violent discourse adds something important to the national conversation, by your own admission, why doesn't it add something of worth here? If I were to hypothetically include in a criticism of Glenn Beck a mention of how I want to strangle him... what's been added? Now, apply your answer to the same behavior on this forum. What if I threatened Ace (something that would never happen outside of a purely hypothetical exercise like this one, of course), by mentioning how I wanted to strangle him? Now apply the answer from the first question to the second. What's so different? Are you going to try and fall back on the "we don't allow trolling, but America does" thing?

While dissenting opinions are of paramount importance in a free society or community, threats of violence are not dissent.

---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

I'm still happy to not only compare the Bush administration to the Nazis, but unlike the Tea Partiers I can explain in great detail why I think so, and I never compared them in scale. It's a persuasive argument, if memory serves, not a poster with a mustache so subtly drawn on Bush's face without any further explanation. I never, ever, ever included violent speech in discussing him or his ilk, though. Frustrated, disappointed, and even angry as I was, I had no wish to see Bush, Cheney, Rummy, or any of them harmed. At most, I wanted an investigation, trial, and sentencing. Even the most radical voices on TFP never included anything like that. If such statements were used, they would have been at least met with gentle rebuke.

---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------

So you're saying the rhetoric could be acting as some kind of light classical conditioning? I have to admit, I never really thought of it in that way before. Would you mind elaborating on this idea a bit?

Cynthetiq

Tully, groups should speak their minds and intentions. No one likes when someone gets voted into office and then does things that were not spoken about or are out of character for the platform.

The Westboro Church if they rise to some sort of viable political platform can and should continue to speak in the manner they have been. Why should they stop or change their tune unless they really have.

This also means that if Taliban or other group rise to some sort of political recognition, they too should have their same discourse. It should not be limited in the manner of that "it has no part."

The same should be for any Hamas organization that gains some sort of political traction here.

Again, TFP is not a public space. That individual like another who was crazy and bent on some of the staff here was free to vocalize their hate and discontent in their own space that they paid for. TFP is as public as any privately held space is. We reserve the right to remove people as we see fit, with no reason or explanation required.

No Will, that's not what I meant and you know that. For 8 years the Bush bashers called for his head on a platter, some making the same violent overtures that have been bandied about since Obama has taken office.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I'm talking about what you find acceptable in rhetoric, without the context of public vs. private spaces. You find that calling for violence is inappropriate when you're in a position of authority, but when someone else is in a position of authority, you conveniently abandon that position. It's a classic do as I say, not as I do.

I know you're trying to mask a free speech argument, though you're not quite coming out and saying it, but that's problematic because the Supreme Court has affirmed that threats of violence are outside of the purview of the First Amendment.
You say that people called for Bush's head on a platter, but they didn't do it literally. They didn't call for his assassination, implicitly or explicitly. They didn't call for violence against him. They didn't fantasize about murdering prominent conservatives. They didn't call for "Second Amendment remedies", or anything even close to it. You're playing the false equivalence game right along with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and you're doing it poorly. Maybe consider your position when you find yourself shoulder to shoulder with Palin and Beck on an issue. It's simply untrue. All of these attempts to shift the blame evenly are about as subtle as a flying mallet.

Call them on their violent rhetoric or admit that you enable them.

Cynthetiq

No they haven't Will. They have said, DIRECT threats are, but indirect stated puffered threats are fine. I have also no distinguished between any position of authority. I have stated that it's all fine and good because it's within the scope of understanding the position and platform of the group. I don't subscribe to them and that it does not require I decry their position. I just don't have to listen or pay attention to them. I don't need to bother myself or waste any energy on them at all.

Will, I don't let people shit in my living room. They are free to do it wherever someone else allows them to.

I don't enable them. I don't control the airwaves. In fact, I don't even consume the media that you're talking about.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Of course you enable them. You're hardly alone in enabling them, but the collective tacit acceptance is what allows them to keep their pulpits. They're not just in place because of the super far-right that fetishizes them, they're in place because people who are slightly more reasonable choose not to call them on their inappropriate behavior, instead making weak excuses for them. Like false equivalence.

I might, MIGHT be inclined to think you were being honest about this if you hadn't brought up the false equivalence thing. Your argument about threats of violence being a part of understanding someone's position better certainly isn't compelling, but it's something that I can buy you really do believe. The problem is that you put it right next to a totally false argument like saying the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to this sort of discourse, which you know not to be true. That makes the whole thing suspect. To put it more plainly, I don't buy that you believe your arguments on this. I think, like many from center right to far right, you're fishing for an argument that deflects or otherwise prevents you from having to be honest with yourself and everyone about this.