Violent Political Rhetoric

So, this whole thing with the Congresswoman shooting is getting people talking about violent rhetoric in political discourse, with each side trying to say that the shooter was a member of the other side.

But isn't this totally ridiculous? Violent Rhetoric is violent. If you can't defend what you're saying in the event that some guy who associates with you does something crazy, maybe you shouldn't be saying it?

Coincidentally, this is happenning at the same time as a by-election is being held in the UK over election rhetoric having gone too far.

^^ The biggest thing that bothers me the most about this whole violent rhetoric thing, is the left didn't apparently learn a damn thing from Hasan's shooting at Ft Hood.

Or maybe it was because he's Muslim that they called for 'peace and tolerance' in the face of a goddamn jihadi and leftists like Krugman immediately skewer the right with vitriolic rhetoric when a by all accounts madman just opens fire for no defendable legitimate reason.

Citation?

You said vitriolic, not violent. I don't care about vitriolic. I care about violent.

Tom, let's say that the guy WAS a hyper right wing relatively sane person who just thought that he needed to get rid of the opposition-how would that change the defense of the violent rhetoric that the Tea Party has been using to describe taking down democrats?

edited 11th Jan '11 6:39:04 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

I'm more curious as to why you have to defend your view when somebody else who also believes it does something crazy.

You have to defend your view all the time. If you can't defend it when someone who's crazy goes and does shit, why would you be able to defend it any other time?

The incident is not the problem. It merely calls attention to the problem.

edited 11th Jan '11 7:05:28 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Tom, let's say that the guy WAS a hyper right wing relatively sane person who just thought that he needed to get rid of the opposition-how would that change the defense of the violent rhetoric that the Tea Party has been using to describe taking down democrats?

It doesn't. Advocating senseless violence is political suicide no matter who you are, but figurative stuff like marching on DC to save the country's finances, a tad hyperbole yes but nothing wrong.

After all, if we start curbing what we can say just because of a madman, we no longer truly have the right to free speech.

On the flipside, if this guy was, the onus is on the left to prove the right is nothing but violent. If they fail at proving even one case beyond that, their entire argument that "the right is violent and teh ebil!!!!111ONEONEONE!!1!11" falls on deaf ears and is ignored politically.

The burden of proof is not on the right to prove they are not violencemongers, it is on the left to prove conclusively that they are. Right now, all proof suggests politics had little to nothing to do with the incident in question, violent rhetoric or not.

edited 11th Jan '11 7:14:29 AM by MajorTom

Sarah Palin put crosshairs on people she wanted out of office, and constantly talks about reloading.

Is the Tea Party simply unable or unwilling to use anything other than gun metaphors? I understand you don't think you should have to use anything else, but honestly-the basic rhetoric has boiled down to "We want to <very tiny font> figuratively <back to full font> kill these bastards!"

How is that not unacceptable? I'm not talking about being considered illegal-I'm a free speech nut and think that politicians should have the right to say crazy shit (though I do get a bit fussier about slander and libel). But why is Sarah Palin even remotely taken seriously by anyone?

No one is saying the Right is nothing but violent wackjobs Tom. Well, not no one. I'm sure there's a few people who say that, especially in hyperbole. But generally, the argument isn't that the right is violent wackjobs-it's that the violent wackjobs are all part of the right (which isn't true on an absolute scale, but the main-stream left media is substantially less violent than the main-stream right media).

edited 11th Jan '11 7:23:54 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

^^ Just like in the law, really, which is how I look at that kind of thing. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt rather than the defence to prove innocence.

But why is Sarah Palin even remotely taken seriously by anyone?

Being an outsider is an unimaginable advantage until you actually reach high office. Sarah Palin illustrates it; she is "one of them."

edited 11th Jan '11 7:23:46 AM by TheGloomer

Here, let me use a You Tube video to illustrate my point.

Tom, the reason the left called for "peace and tolerance" as you put it after the Ft. Hood shooting was because large segments of the right immediately jumped on the "he's a terrorist" bandwagon even though the evidence linking him to terror movements was circumstantial at best, at least at the time.

And no, no one's proved that the right's violent rhetoric was "responsible" for this incident. The thing is, these things happen so rarely that there simply are not enough data points to draw any real conclusions. That said, the number of threats against congressmen and women has risen, though the causal relationship between that and the rhetoric is certainly unclear. It could very well be that the rhetoric is a shameless attempt to draw the viewership/votes of an already violent undercurrent. Whether the rhetoric in turn encourages one of these people to act on their threats... well, that's a question I have no means to answer.

And as for your comment that if we censor ourselves for the sake of a few crazy people, we can no longer say we have free speech, well, no one's making you censor your speech. But remember that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. That's why we need to have these discussions, so we can see if this violent rhetoric really contributes anything to the national debate, or if we would all be a little better choosing do turn it down a notch.

But how do you properly defend yourself from insinuations "this person who holds the same views as you went crazy, how do we know you won't" isn't something you can properly defend yourself from because you have to defend yourself from an implication rather than something falsifiable.

No one's saying that the Tea Party is responsible for the violence and should be treated as violent lunatics (well, not no one, but that's not the principle argument). The argument is that the rhetoric shouldn't focus on physical violence.

To put it another way, Sarah Palin didn't murder anyone, and we can't just assume she's going to-even if the guy was a devout Tea Party goer or whatever. But that doesn't mean that the violent rhetoric isn't a bad idea-and thus something to be condemned-in the first place.

We condemn hate speech-why don't we condemn violent rhetoric?

edited 11th Jan '11 7:37:45 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

My question is how the rhetoric from the right is any different from the rhetoric from the left? (As a reminder, do a google image search on the phrase "kill bush".)

Apples and oranges:

A.) We're talking about a political party, and candidates for office

B.) As far as we're talking about the media, none of the main stream media ever said "Kill Bush."

We've had a lot of violent rhetoric in Northern Ireland, of course. I have the fortune of being born late enough to avoid experiencing it firsthand, but I am aware of it and I've listened to or read about it. The thing is, I imagine that the terrorist campaigns would have occurred either way.

We as an electorate should treat those that resort to violent rhetoric with nothing but derision and dismissal-that sort of thing should not be part of the political process, as it entirely defeats the purpose of democracy.

If you're just going to have a bloody revolution every time you disagree with the people in power, then there's not a whole lot of reason for electing people in the first place.

If you've elected people who have essentially turned the "democratic" process irrelevant, than it's time to contemplate the bullet over the ballot-box. Assuming you're of the belief system that political action is actually individually desirable.

edited 11th Jan '11 7:55:36 AM by Tsukubus

Attempting to convince a group of the population that the democratic process has been rendered irrelevant and that, as thus, one must resort to physical violence is beyond disgusting.

Even if in a hypothetical future (distant or otherwise) it is true?

x? I fail to see the "apples and oranges" difference here. If you want a more main-stream google, try "Andrew Sullivan George Bush War Criminal". Or, perhaps, the DLC's very own targeting map◊.

One point of my question is that I find it odd that these questions regarding "violent political rhetoric" seem to arise only when said rhetoric can be pegged on the right. My other point is this: shouldn't we have had this conversation a long time ago. (Or is violent political rhetoric okay when it's directed at your political opponents?)

edited 11th Jan '11 8:06:16 AM by OscarWildecat

Attempting to convince a group of the population that the democratic process has been rendered irrelevant and that, as thus, one must resort to physical violence is beyond disgusting.

Really? So if a government keeps democratic trappings, revolution is never justified, ever? Because that's what you're saying, even if it isn't what you mean.

Can I get a citation for that map? I've heard some things about photoshopped pics recently, so I'm a bit concerned.

Yes-if the Democrats were using violent rhetoric then, then they should be rebuked for that as well. However, even then, a bullseye as it pertains to a game of darts and crosshairs are completely different categories of violent rhetoric, especially when you consider how much the Tea Party encourages everyone to bring firearms and constantly talk about the second amendment, in a "Use firearms for what they're intended: to engage in revolution against an oppressive government."

^Let me clarify that I mean "Using it as a political tool to get what you want because you want to manipulate the electorate" not as in "The government is an honest to god tyranny that needs to be overthrown through force."

edited 11th Jan '11 8:09:08 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

If you've elected people who have essentially turned the "democratic" process irrelevant, than it's time to contemplate the bullet over the ballot-box. Assuming you're of the belief system that political action is actually individually desirable.

Gerry Adams once said something like that, although he said it in a way that suggested violence should be used to supplement the democratic process rather than replace it.

Or maybe he didn't. It was in a fifth form history text book I read years ago.

Good ol' Sinn Fein.

Anyways, electoral democracy and tyranny are hardly mutually exclusive. Cultural hegemony can exist in a electoral democracy, as the modern USA shows.

edited 11th Jan '11 8:11:55 AM by Tsukubus