# Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228 "2011-01-11T16:29:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/121 "2011-01-11T21:03:53Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > \*[SUB]Personally, I don’t think that the shooting in Tucson was a result of Palin’s- or anyone else’s- rhetoric. I think the shooter was just nuts. However, I do think this is a good wakeup call, a good opportunity to say, “hey, maybe we should ratchet it back a bit _before_ someone takes what we say a bit too seriously”.[/SUB] This is the equivalent of saying: "these things don’t have anything to do with each other, but since one is actually a violent act and the other is a metaphor about violence, I’ll use it as an opportunity to bash someone’s free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/122 "2011-01-11T21:23:35Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > Nope…anyone who speaks of "2nd amendment “solutions” to political or other civic disputes or, imo, goes to a political rally packing weapons in plain sight and/or combat gear is clearly expressing “hate”. They can bullshit all they want; packing blatent heat to a political rally is nothing more than a THREAT. They are thugs and punks, not supporters of the Constitution. :mad: I wouldn’t say that such people are necessarily advocating “hate,” though they are certainly offering a threatening statement. They may well be serious supporters of the Constitution. (Last spring, [I argued](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12363119#post12363119) that some current pro-Second rallies could be seen as having common cause with Black Panthers’ display of weapons.) But they, and any speakers or organizers who welcome them, should be _honest_ about the fact that they _are_ advocating violence, if necessary, in its defense. They should not piously disavow responsibility for someone acting upon what they have overtly suggested. Look, all of us here who are Americans and count ourselves as patriots–all of us who accept the “founding narrative” that **John Mace** [mentioned](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13341846#post13341846) in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=592584)–is there not _some_ theoretical point at which we would accept that political violence is merited? I don’t know how one _can_ be a patriotic American, accepting that narrative, without believing that–to be blunt–killing people _could_ be necessary in the defense of liberty. I don’t shirk from saying that. My problem is with the hypocrisy and sanctimony of those who are happy to invoke this history, in the context of much smaller contemporary political debates, without _meaning_ it. > [@Wilbo523](#): > > Again…does anyone seriously think that Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle were imploring people to actually take up weapons against opposing candidates? > > Sure it creates imagery…the horror! But do you really think they intended for citizens supporting their cause, to take up arms against the candidates they were campaigning against? No. And that’s exactly the problem. Don’t call down the thunder if you don’t _really_ want to get it. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/123 "2011-01-11T21:31:58Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Are you talking about the British production _Death of a President_? If so, are you attempting to claim that the film advocated the assassination of GWB? If it didn’t, that would undercut your case a bit, wouldn’t it? > > [Here’s the Wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_(2006_film)). I leave it to readers to decide whether **Yorick** has found a valid example of American left-wing violent imagery or not. Yup, the British production. Does the film have to _advocate_ the assassination of GWB in order to qualify in your mind? The title of the thread is “aggressively violent imagery”. Or, are you claiming that Sarah Palin _advocates_ the shooting of politicians she disagrees with? ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/124 "2011-01-11T21:35:28Z")
Frankly, it’s the wrong drum to be beating. Instead of asking the right to tone down their rhetoric, we should simply demand that they stop lying. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/125 "2011-01-11T21:36:13Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > are you claiming that Sarah Palin _advocates_ the shooting of politicians she disagrees with? That’s exactly what they are claiming. If she didn’t want the thunder to come down, she wouldn’t be asking for it. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/126 "2011-01-11T21:38:40Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > The only \*book \*I could find about the assassination of Bush was [Checkpoint](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_%28novel%29), wherein two characters spend much of the book discussing how they’d kill the President through cartoonish violence (such as “Manchurian scorpions”)… and never, you know, actually go through with it. > > Personally, I’m a little unclear how this book, and the movie you mentioned, indicate Liberal violence against a Republican President, but I’m sure friend \*\*Yorick \*\*will be along any minute now to lay it out on the big chalkboard. > … any minute now. Nice way to move the goalposts. Now the imagery must indicate violence against a public official. How, exactly, does Palin’s map indicate violence against anyone? Maybe I missed the caption to the graphic which said “Kill these congressmen”? Contrast that with a book about a plot to kill a sitting president and a movie which actually portrays the assassination of a sitting president. The book and movie go a lot further than inferences gathered from a graphic. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/127 "2011-01-11T21:39:00Z")
After several days of this, I think a large part of the issue is just that the left and right view guns different. The right views guns as an independence thing. It’s a man standing up for what’s right, like the minutemen did. It’s man against nature. It’s father/son bonding on the kids first hunting trip. To them, a gun reference is not a reference to violence. On the other hand, liberals view guns purely as violence. Guns are gang fights. It’s the guy mugging you at gunpoint. It’s a psycho firing into a crowd. To them, a gun reference is automatically a reference to violence. That’s why some republicans are pointing at that target map as being equal to Palin’s map, to them a target and crosshair honestly are equal. That’s why liberals immediate dismiss the target map, to them a crosshair honestly is far more violent than a target. If I try looking at both sides at a ‘what level of violence does the person making a statement think it is’ the sides appear roughly equal. Because of the gun thing though, liberals will think republicans are far more violent and will never understand why a republican doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/128 "2011-01-11T21:41:32Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And which of those was promoted by a Democratic nominee for federal office? At least we have the sense not to nominate our whackos; Republicans just can’t help voting for theirs. I think you have your facts in the wrong order temporally. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/129 "2011-01-11T21:43:35Z")
> [@godix](#): > > After several days of this, I think a large part of the issue is just that the left and right view guns different. > > The right views guns as an independence thing. It’s a man standing up for what’s right, like the minutemen did. It’s man against nature. It’s father/son bonding on the kids first hunting trip. To them, a gun reference is not a reference to violence. > > On the other hand, liberals view guns purely as violence. Guns are gang fights. It’s the guy mugging you at gunpoint. It’s a psycho firing into a crowd. To them, a gun reference is automatically a reference to violence. > > That’s why some republicans are pointing at that target map as being equal to Palin’s map, to them a target and crosshair honestly are equal. That’s why liberals immediate dismiss the target map, to them a crosshair honestly is far more violent than a target. > > If I try looking at both sides at a ‘what level of violence does the person making a statement think it is’ the sides appear roughly equal. Because of the gun thing though, liberals will think republicans are far more violent and will never understand why a republican doesn’t. There’s probably a bit of truth to what you say. A good friend of mine that moved to my state from a more liberal part of the country, whom aligns with myself on most fiscal and economic issues, was appaled to discover that quite a few of our common friends, myself included, owned handguns. He couldn’t understand it. It was a completely foreign concept that someone like “us” would own a handgun. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/130 "2011-01-11T21:47:17Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > This is the equivalent of saying: "these things don’t have anything to do with each other, but since one is actually a violent act and the other is a metaphor about violence, I’ll use it as an opportunity to bash someone’s free speech. I like to think of it more as a cautionary tale. “Hey, we didn’t get anyone killed this time- but maybe \*we \*should ratchet it down a bit.” You know… kinda like dodging a bullet. Please notice that \*nowhere \*in that paragraph did I say that anyone \*else \*should prevent them from saying whatever the hell they want- what I actually said was that _the person making the inflammatory statements_ might want to examine their own statements and think about what effect those statements might have. Both sides are guilty of inflammatory political rhetoric (the Right moreso than the Left, in my opinion, especially of late). Both sides should take this as a near miss and calm it the hell down. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/131 "2011-01-11T21:49:10Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Both sides should take this as a near miss and calm it the hell down. This (Tuscon) is a near miss of what? I don’t get the connection. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/132 "2011-01-11T21:52:38Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Nice way to move the goalposts. Now the imagery must indicate violence against a public official. How, exactly, does Palin’s map indicate violence against anyone? Maybe I missed the caption to the graphic which said “Kill these congressmen”? Contrast that with a book about a plot to kill a sitting president and a movie which actually portrays the assassination of a sitting president. The book and movie go a lot further than inferences gathered from a graphic. Do you even know what “moving the goalposts” means? The book you mentioned was: A) Fiction B) Cartoonish in its depictions of how the President would be killed C) Written by a novelist as a story, not by a politician or political commentator as an instruction manual or even as a suggestion. Why don’t you try reading what I posted, instead of what you want to see? All I did was refute your example of the book as an example of “violence from the Left”. In other words, the book nor the movie have anything to do with your thesis. There are other, better, examples of inflammatory Liberal rhetoric. This ain’t it. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/133 "2011-01-11T21:53:18Z")
And the use of “inflammatory” has been used multiple times in this thread. Other than igniting people to go vote in one way or another, how has any of the speech, imagery, etc. put forth by Palin, the Republican Party, RW media pundits, etc. , driven or inflammed anyone to do anything violent? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/134 "2011-01-11T21:54:12Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > This (Tuscon) is a near miss of what? I don’t get the connection. Yes. Quite. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/135 "2011-01-11T21:55:24Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Yes. Quite. I would count that as a failure on your part to not being able to make your point. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/136 "2011-01-11T21:58:52Z")
> [@godix](#): > > After several days of this, I think a large part of the issue is just that the left and right view guns different. > > The right views guns as an independence thing. It’s a man standing up for what’s right, like the minutemen did. It’s man against nature. It’s father/son bonding on the kids first hunting trip. To them, a gun reference is not a reference to violence. > > On the other hand, liberals view guns purely as violence. Guns are gang fights. It’s the guy mugging you at gunpoint. It’s a psycho firing into a crowd. To them, a gun reference is automatically a reference to violence. > > That’s why some republicans are pointing at that target map as being equal to Palin’s map, to them a target and crosshair honestly are equal. That’s why liberals immediate dismiss the target map, to them a crosshair honestly is far more violent than a target. > > If I try looking at both sides at a ‘what level of violence does the person making a statement think it is’ the sides appear roughly equal. Because of the gun thing though, liberals will think republicans are far more violent and will never understand why a republican doesn’t. Here’s the problem - you are basing your opinion on a paranoid fantasy of what liberals think. I shot rifles in the Boy Scouts and pistols in college, and even some skeet while visiting my roommate in Texas, and enjoyed it. (Missed all the birds, but fun anyhow.) The reason the right is dead set against fairly simple things like registering guns or even publishing information about gun dealers who have a thriving business with Mexican druglords is that you are sure all liberals are just itching to take your guns away. We aren’t. We’d just like to keep them out of the hands of known criminals and the mentally ill. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/137 "2011-01-11T22:04:38Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Again…does anyone seriously think that Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle were imploring people to actually take up weapons against opposing candidates? Palin, probably not. I doubt she thought two seconds about how easily her map could be construed in ways other than the normal “political targeting” of vulnerable candidates. Angle, on the other hand, was quite plainly agreeing with a nutcase who was advocating violence. I’m going to be charitable and say she was just trying to look like a politician agreeing with a constituent, but she probably had no freakin’ clue what she was saying in the process. There is no other possible interpretation to what she said. But I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is so dumb that she had no clue what she was saying. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/138 "2011-01-11T22:08:14Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > I would count that as a failure on your part to not being able to make your point. Others seem to be having no trouble seeing the parallel, and I’m far from the first to even articulate it. Maybe the problem’s on your end? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/139 "2011-01-11T22:26:27Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Yup, the British production. Does the film have to _advocate_ the assassination of GWB in order to qualify in your mind? Well, yes, of course it would. Otherwise it’s irrelevant. I’d say you’ve never even read a description of the film in question. If you had, you would know that it is mainly a speculation on how the assassination of Bush might have affected US domestic and international policies. There is no evidence whatever that it was intended to influence US domestic politics, and it clearly does not advocate presidential assassination. > [@](#): > > The title of the thread is “aggressively violent imagery”. Or, are you claiming that Sarah Palin _advocates_ the shooting of politicians she disagrees with? The title of the thread is “Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties?” Unless you can show that the US Democratic Party had something to do with the making of this film, it has nothing to do with the thread topic. Lastly, I have made no claims concerning Sarah Palin’s motives in using gun-culture imagery in her political speech and postings. Would you like to know my position on that? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/140 "2011-01-11T22:48:30Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > Do you even know what “moving the goalposts” means? Sure do. See your inital post as a good example. > [@Lightnin](#): > > The book you mentioned was: > A) Fiction > B) Cartoonish in its depictions of how the President would be killed > C) Written by a novelist as a story, not by a politician or political commentator as an instruction manual or even as a suggestion. So what. You don’t find it interesting that the president in the book is not a fictional president, as most works of art include, but a sitting president? You don’t think there was a purpose for doing that? You don’t think a fiction writer can be commenting on politics in any form? You think that a cartoonish depiction of plotting to kill a sitting president is fine but an innocuous map can drive someone to murder? > [@Lightnin](#): > > Why don’t you try reading what I posted, instead of what you want to see? All I did was refute your example of the book as an example of “violence from the Left”. In other words, the book nor the movie have anything to do with your thesis. > > There are other, better, examples of inflammatory Liberal rhetoric. This ain’t it. Why don’t you read what you posted instead of what you wish you had posted. I responded to your exact post. I also didn’t claim, as you imply, that the book was the best example…merely an example added to the entire list I linked to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=8)