TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Violent Political Rhetoric

Go To

Filby Since: Jan, 2001
#126: Jan 16th 2011 at 11:51:18 AM

I don't hold Palin responsible for the shooting at all, but like I said in the "blood libel" thread, I'm infuriated that instead of just acknowledging her "crosshairs map" was tasteless in retrospect, she's used this tragedy as an excuse to portray herself as a victim YET AGAIN when a half dozen people are dead.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#127: Jan 16th 2011 at 12:34:26 PM

[up] That.

Fucking Palin. >=[

InkyQuills Ghost of Hatter from Anytown, USA Since: Dec, 2010
Ghost of Hatter
#128: Jan 16th 2011 at 12:54:52 PM

Apologizing for the crosshairs map would have been an acknowledgment of guilt. Even if it was tasteless, even implying that it was responsible for the massacre would open Palin up to civil and possibly criminal charges. I personally wouldn't have used the term "blood libel" due to its connection to anti-Semetism, but its meaning of "accusation of murder against an innocent party" was justified.

Here is an interesting article concerning the controversy by Rabbi Boteach.

In the same place I was that one time, all the time
Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#129: Jan 16th 2011 at 1:32:19 PM

I think the reason why we keep talking about this is, despite it being clear politics had nothing to do with this, it was EXACTLY the first thing that came to mind when this happened.

It was clearly on our minds, but this brought it out.

Sadly our society is reactionary, and we always need disaster to happen before we actually DO something (Katrina anyone?)

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#130: Jan 16th 2011 at 8:59:22 PM

Palin should want civil and criminal charges. It's a great PR opportunity (if someone's dumb enough to do it) since she'd be pretty much sure to win. That would make her look like an actual victim, as opposed to a whiner.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#131: Jan 17th 2011 at 6:06:58 AM

^ Actually no she shouldn't. Pressing charges on her now over this shooting is tantamount to Thoughtcrime. I don't care how bad the tragedy was, you don't charge people like that.

Nohbody "In distress", my ass. from Somewhere in Dixie Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
"In distress", my ass.
#132: Jan 17th 2011 at 6:32:43 AM

Besides, who said the charges would be in a court of law? There are plenty of people willing to do the legwork in the court of public opinion, given the slightest opportunity to do so.

Hell, Rep. Giffords had just rolled into the ER when the drumbeat about "Palin is responsible" started pounding on the talking head circuit. One site I saw (forget where, offhand, but I think NY Daily News) had a poll where like 60% or so of those who took the poll were saying she was at least partly responsible for the shooting, within a day of the actual event.

It's a lot harder to get found "not guilty" in the court of public opinion, especially when the "judges" are biased as all get-out. Appealing a guilty "verdict" there is even more difficult, particularly when facing Hanging Judges in a Kangaroo Court (figuratively speaking).

All your safe space are belong to Trump
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#133: Jan 17th 2011 at 8:30:10 AM

Tom, I agree fully that it's a retardedly stupid idea to charge Palin with something-but it would be to her benefit, because she would win, and make it look like the government is out to get her and stupid (which, if it tried to charge her with anything, it would be). That's the point Ultrayellow was getting at.

Sometimes, injustice towards one's self is in one's best interest.

Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#134: Jan 17th 2011 at 9:55:03 AM

[up][up][up]

No one is going to charge her of any involvement of the crime.

Would it just be too much for her to maybe to say "Yeah maybe I should not have used the term Blood Libel, sorry."?

edited 17th Jan '11 9:55:12 AM by Thorn14

rjung He's just some guy, you know? from Fifth and Main (Five Year Plan) Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
He's just some guy, you know?
#135: Jan 17th 2011 at 12:44:43 PM

I just want to mention that a bullseye doesn't have nearly as much connotation of violence as a set of crosshairs, IMO. Nobody bats an eye when they go shopping at Target...

—R.J.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#136: Jan 17th 2011 at 1:39:41 PM

Exactly. Basically, Dems had a nifty bullseye map, and Republicans, to make it more Republicany, decided to use Crosshairs, thinking that hey-it was okay when the Dems did it, but not realizing that, you know, maybe crosshairs are a little more controversial than bullseyes?

I mean, ultimately, we should just tell politicians to tone it down a notch. The argument isn't that they're responsible for violence-it's that violent rhetoric is corrosive in the first place.

EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
#137: Jan 17th 2011 at 2:20:58 PM

It's not just the bullseyes. It's her opponent, Jesse Kelly, shooting M-16s at an event to "remove her from office". It's Sharron Angle talking about "second amendment remedies". It's countless assholes talking about watering the tree of liberty with blood, and the need for a second revolution.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#138: Jan 17th 2011 at 2:21:49 PM

Yeah, that's basically all a bunch of totally unacceptable bullshit.

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#139: Jan 17th 2011 at 3:00:25 PM

Except you're forgetting the targeting map the Democrats did earlier.

Then you have one key issue you two are forgetting. Slamming both sides equally for their rhetoric is all fine and good provided you heap it out evenly. With all the accusations and political attacks levied at the right, nobody is going to take you serious on slamming both sides' rhetoric anymore without first leveling the field by slamming the left just as equally.

Politics has a lot of tit-for-tat. Launch a blitzkrieg of political attacks at somebody who didn't deserve it over something non-political and you cannot in good faith assume fairness in the immediate future in return.

That's the whole problem right now in light of Giffords being shot. Paul Krugman and the leftists immediately went after the right and there has been no comeuppance for their types as part of telling both sides to knock it off. If that does not happen soon, you cannot possibly expect fair dialogue and a lack of partisanship in the future.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#140: Jan 17th 2011 at 3:42:01 PM

Tom, pay attention: the Dems targeting map was bullseyes. The Republicans targeting map was Crosshairs. And even then, the map thing really is one of the lighter examples of violent rhetoric and, AGAIN, everyone HERE at least has explicitly come out against the democrats earlier violent rhetoric as well-though with the corollary of pointing out that it's never really been from political candidates for office.

Basically your argument boils down to "Well, the democrats are the same" when the reality is, no-they're not.

edited 17th Jan '11 3:42:49 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#141: Jan 17th 2011 at 4:39:10 PM

Actually they are. You're bloody painting them with a halo when they started this round of hate spewing!

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#142: Jan 17th 2011 at 4:41:49 PM

Yes, because a back and forth of "Yes!" "NO!" is really intelligent.

Name one Democratic candidate for office who has implied directly that we need to kill the opposition?

Note that I'm not saying Democrats don't occasionally toss around Hitler Ate Sugar with regards to Bush and the like (Go go Kucinich!) but that's not the same thing as calls to physical violence.

edited 17th Jan '11 4:42:51 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

deathjavu This foreboding is fa... from The internet, obviously Since: Feb, 2010
This foreboding is fa...
#143: Jan 17th 2011 at 5:40:35 PM

Oh for crying out loud, haven't we already figured this out?

Fact: Violent political rhetoric happens on both sides of the aisle.

Fact: It's equally inexcusable on either side of the aisle, and anyone who engages in it should be shunned and ostracized. They should be the laughingstocks of politics.

Fact: The right's rhetoric is both more numerous and more widely accepted than the lefts. This isn't an excuse for anyone, however, and it's not actually all that important.

Couldn't we just stick to ignoring any nutter who spouts this violent gibberish, rather than using "the other guy did it too!" as an excuse to justify it on our side? Who does it more or less shouldn't be an issue, nobody who does it should be elected/have a widely watched TV show. Stop watching these violent hatemongers, and stop voting for them.

edited 17th Jan '11 5:41:35 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#144: Jan 17th 2011 at 5:56:27 PM

Yeah, that's probably the most sensible response. "The dems did it first!" is something of a major red herring.

Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#145: Jan 18th 2011 at 9:04:26 AM

I'd be completely fine if both sides went together said "Yeah, we both fucked up, lets never do it again."

No finger pointing, no examples, just promises for EVERYONE to not do it in the future.

But this is Washington, and we love attacking each other :/

Cojuanco Since: Oct, 2009
#146: Jan 18th 2011 at 11:59:27 AM

The thing is, one side will only stop using this political weapon if the other side stops first. But neither side has any guarrantee that the other side will abide by any agreement. It's why disarming combatants in civil wars is really hard to do without taking sides, and since politics is war by other means...

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#147: Jan 18th 2011 at 12:01:26 PM

Citation of recent violent rhetoric used by the left?

EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
#148: Jan 18th 2011 at 12:10:18 PM

And if you link to Michelle Malkin or Redstate, you will be asked to do it over.

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#149: Jan 18th 2011 at 2:00:56 PM

^ Conversely if you link to Daily Kos or Move On.org to link violent political rhetoric to the right you will be asked to do it over.

rjung He's just some guy, you know? from Fifth and Main (Five Year Plan) Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie

Total posts: 161
Top