Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The false meme of irresponsible, violent right wing rhetoric and subsequent violence (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: The false meme of irresponsible, violent right wing rhetoric and subsequent violence
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it astonishing that, in direct response to someone saying (correctly) that no one on this board is suggesting that stupid or incendiary speech should be illegal, you follow up with a post asking whether or not the poster also believes that saying blatantly untrue things should be illegal.

quote:
It does look like even if Obama is not a Muslim, and I don't think he is, he does understand the culture and finds some usefulness in some of their practices, and this habit of lying whenever it's convenient to further his agenda is one of them.
Permit me an eyeroll here, please, you stinkin' troll. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I think I feel pretty vindicated about everything. Let's review:

1) Loughner was, quite clearly, not a conservative. While the NY Times may put together lies saying he's pro-life, and others cling desperately to his rantings about the gold standard (which, if anything, puts him on the RonPaul/Daruma28 side of the political spectrum, not the Right), this is one that everyone basically concedes. He's a loon. Period.

2) The media, quite clearly, created a narrative that this was linked to right-wing rhetoric. I'm surprised anyone does dispute this, but I'm sure some will. Besides the obvious (two threads devoted to it), we have clear facts. The Sunday after the attack, the top question being asked on Facebook according to their CEO was if Palin was to blame. "Sarah Palin crosshairs" was the 9th most googled term, and Palin herself was 6th. At least two polls were commissioned to ask people about it in the week after. The NY Times themselves spoke of this narrative today and whether it was appropriate to participate in it. Obama himself talked about it in his speech. Does anyone seriously doubt this?

3) When the facts showed otherwise, the narrative kept shifting. As stated previously, this was clearly the narrative of Tea Party rhetoric causing the attack. Then it became general right wing rhetoric. Then a culture of hate. Then general lamentations about violent rhetoric in general. The goalposts kept shifting. The most laughable one was against Palin herself. As stated, it was clear that she was the focus of the media's attack afterwards. Yet, when it became obvious how ridiculous a statement that was, the pattern shifted. After Palin responded, the media started criticizing her for defending herself! The absurdity was incredible.

4) Anything you can do, I can do better. This is the most tedious part of talking politics online: the inevitable tit-for-tat and partisan grandstanding. Throughout this, it was clear that the Left was pretending that they had the high ground here, and that the hateful rhetoric was exclusive to the Right. And yet, the examples kept crumbling...
- The "target" and crosshairs was the first naturally... yet similar maps and rhetoric was present on Dem leadership websites (and major blogs)
- Next, the narrative focused on the use of guns in TP ads... Yet similar ads appeared from Dem hopefuls.
- Next, the narrative switched to the supposed uptick in death threats towards Dem politicians... while, simultaneously, hundreds of tweets were calling for the death of Sarah Palin and death threats towards her spiked dramatically.
- Finally, we get the silly narrative that the hateful rhetoric from the Dems is somehow frowned upon more rather than accepted like on the Right... yet Grayson, Sparks, et al. are all heros to the left.
- It goes on and on and on and on... all while one side is calling the other partisan and biased...

5) The hypocrisy is overwhelming. The death threats against Palin are the obvious one. As is the fact that nearly everybody on the left complaining about the violent, hate filled rhetoric was also guilty of similar transgressions in the past. The Lefty sheriff of Tucson was going out of his way getting everywhere on TV shouting the media's narrative at the top of his lungs while reports were coming in that they knew about his mental instability. And, of course, the weirdest irony of all is Jeff Fuller. Someone injured in the attacks, blames rightwing rhetoric for the violence, and then makes death threats against TP members. Unbelievable.

In the end, I hope we can all learn a few lessons from this. A) Do not start speculating on something before the facts are in. B) The media can and does create narratives to suit their own ends, so be skeptical. C) Be pure in heart, try to instill purity of heart in others, but don't pretend all your allies are pure of heart and all your enemies are evil. You just look stupid that way.

Now, I'm sure the media would like to forget this silly mess ever happened, so let's all just forget it. After all, there's more important things to worry about. The media would like to switch gears to these more important things. After all, it is MLK Jr. Day. So let's all come together and talk about how racist Republicans are! Now that's a narrative that never goes our of style! [Razz]

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
others cling desperately to his rantings about the gold standard (which, if anything, puts him on the RonPaul/Daruma28 side of the political spectrum, not the Right)
I want to point out that I have been saying, from the very beginning, that Loughner is clearly from the RonPaul/Daruma28 side of the Right, the side that the ideological part of the Tea Party wants to occupy when it's not running around waving its hands over its head. I've never argued that he's an Eisenhower Republican. *laugh*
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> TomDavidson

> Permit me an eyeroll here, please, you stinkin' troll.

Certainly.

Another explanation for why he lies so much could be that he's just an open politician, not a closet Muslim.

Just as another example, remember how he scoffed at Hillary when she suggested that an individual mandate would have to be part of health care reform?

And then what does he do? Exactly what he criticized her for saying needed to be done. Shouldn't he explain himself or something? Or does he just lie and lie and lie and think we have such short memories that we forgot? They say good liars need great memories, so could it be that it's even worse and he has such a short memory that he forgets his previous lies? That's the way he acts anyway.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So do you think it should have been illegal to say that it looks like Obama wants to surrender to terrorists?
You know very well I said I oppose any attempt to legally curtail speech.

Even if you are thinking of slander as grounds to sue it's not illegal.

Don't distort my arguments.

[ January 18, 2011, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry just to make sure you understand this I AM NOT CALLING FOR LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND WILL OPPOSE THEM IF THEY ARE PROPOSED.

Do you comprehend this?

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you say it's a lie about someone, then unless I am mistaken that's already slander, and that is already illegal.

So no new laws have to be passed if we use your definition of lies to make them illegal.

There may be an exception for politics, but the way you seem to take criticism of Obama to heart makes it seem like this is all less political and more personal in nature.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
If you say it's a lie about someone, then unless I am mistaken that's already slander, and that is already illegal.

So no new laws have to be passed if we use your definition of lies to make them illegal.

There may be an exception for politics, but the way you seem to take criticism of Obama to heart makes it seem like this is all less political and more personal in nature.

Slander is not illegal on a federal level at all. If you slander someone they can take you to court to try and prove damages. In this case they'd have to prove actual malice and knowledge of falsehood. Legally I think were someone to attempt to sue you you could wiggle out with literary liscense.

There are some state criminal laws against defamtion but your offhand comments would be easily to defend as just that.

I don't like seeing people defamed, regardless of their politics and have defended Bush when I thought he was being defamed as well.

[ January 18, 2011, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry,

Unless something is of a particularly egregarious nature it is essentially impossible for a politician to pursue charges of slander.

quote:

Just as another example, remember how he scoffed at Hillary when she suggested that an individual mandate would have to be part of health care reform?

And then what does he do? Exactly what he criticized her for saying needed to be done. Shouldn't he explain himself or something?

So if a politicians changes a position in your view it is a lie? Are you claiming that you are a liar because you have changed your view on on policys?

Isn't it possible that he believed at the time he was campaigning that an individual mandate was unnecessary, but due to politics was unable to get it through (ie perhaps the insurance lobby was powerful enough that health care reform would have been unpassable without that).

It is definitely possible he was lying, but I think it is rather a questionable starting point for an assumption.

If people fail in their goals and intentions I don't generally consider them to be a liar. Usually I require some intent to decieve.

I can be upset that a campaign promise that I consider important was not kept. However in general I think assuming a failing of integrity should not be the first line reasoning for the failure to follow through on a campaign statement.

quote:
Or does he just lie and lie and lie and think we have such short memories that we forgot? They say good liars need great memories, so could it be that it's even worse and he has such a short memory that he forgets his previous lies? That's the way he acts anyway.
Has it occurred to you to try and take more generous interpretations of his actions other than a lack of integrity on his part?

He has had the worst economic crisis in US history, perhaps the most hostile Congress and Senate in US History, two wars, and other minor concerns.

In my view Obama seems an extremely thoughtful, decent man, of high integrity. Your insistance upon taking the interpretation of happenings that always impunge the worst about Obama when other reasonable interpretations exist speaks more to your character than Obamas.

I'll address one of your accussations

quote:
Didn't he promise to close Gitmo?
He is fighting to get it closed, congress is fighting to keep it open.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

If you are interested you can check on most of his campaign promises there. Of those broken, most appear to be economic promises that he failed to get through the Republicans.

One of the few that I think can reasonably rise to the definition of lie might be the lobbyist statement.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

Note that even some things he got a fail for because he gave a very specific timeline - ie although the whitehouse fleet is being converted over to plugin electric hybrid it didn't meet his one year deadline so was marked a broken promise.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/468/require-hybrid-fleet-at-the-white-house/

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reality check: even some Republicans in Arizona are quitting their party posts because of concern with extremist violence from the right wing. Explain why their judgment is wrong and that of conservative pundits is right
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry

TO be honest I'm tired of trying to explain a position to you that I think is rather hopeless.

The discourse is not going to change. Those people you mentioned make their money off of getting people like you to fight people like me. Ever seen Micheal Moore talk to Sean Hannity? Always perfectly pleasant to one another.

The politicians like it too, it creates an illusion of a struggle between good and evil in every election rather than a competition between rival contractors for the same job. Again usually perfectly nice to one another.

The situation here looks like a cock fight to me. The politicians and the media (particularly the latter) making a few bucks of putting their trained animals into fight. If you ask people who raise fighting cocks they'll tell you what a good life fighting cocks have compared to other chickens. That's true enough but in the end they still get to kill or be killed so a few men can make a few bucks.

What I'd like to see is the citizenry realize their only choices aren't choosing between being a chicken and being a cock.

[ January 18, 2011, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I want to point out that I have been saying, from the very beginning, that Loughner is clearly from the RonPaul/Daruma28 side of the Right, the side that the ideological part of the Tea Party wants to occupy when it's not running around waving its hands over its head. I've never argued that he's an Eisenhower Republican. *laugh*

Are you going to keep repeating this Lie? Lougher is not on the right, is not associated with the right and yet you keep insisting that he is despite all the evidence to the contrary.

To recap:

quote:

Jared Loughner has been described by a class mate (Caitie Parke) as "left wing, quite liberal, & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."

Link

From Loughner:
quote:
"In conclusion, reading the second United Sates Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

"No I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!

"No! I won't trust in God!"

That's clearly an extreme libertarian/anarchist/nutty viewpoint.

quote:

Loughner’s rants, recorded online and by friends and classmates, have to do with some things that might be associated with the right, like his call for a return to the gold standard, some things that might be associated with the left, like his anger over the dissemination of Bibles by the U.S. Army, and some things that are not associated with anything, like his grammar obsession and a mathematical tic that seems to involve prime numbers.

Link

Distrust of the US governments economic policies is hardly a hallmark of the right. Nor is anger over the Bible and God.

Jared Loughner is a lunatic. He's not particularly right or left, he's a nut.


quote:
We don't know the answer, but psychological research suggests that political rhetoric could never be the single cause that leads a person with complex mental problems to commit violence.
...
Was a psychiatric illness beginning? Maybe, but it's difficult to tell, because Loughner had by then used a lot of drugs — not just pot but also hallucinogens like acid, according to Smith. It was at about this time that Loughner did something odd: he worked out for months so he could join the Army. Yet after traveling to the military processing station in Phoenix, he told an Army official that he smoked marijuana excessively — which meant he would never be accepted.

But those who say right-wing rhetoric was the one factor tipping Loughner misunderstand the complex nature of psychosis. "No single variable explains violence in schizophrenia," write Swanson and eight colleagues in a 2006 paper published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. "Rather, violent behavior occurs within a social-ecological system involving a 'whole person' with a particular life history and state of health." In short, saying Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck caused Loughner's actions is, to put it charitably, completely idiotic.

Link
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's clearly an extreme libertarian/anarchist/nutty viewpoint.
Are libertarians leftists now?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
That's clearly an extreme libertarian/anarchist/nutty viewpoint.
Are libertarians leftists now?
Well Leftist-Libertarians are, of course.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1