Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties?

[godix]

“That [current Florida Republican Governor Rick] Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.” - Paul E. Kanjorski

Although wiki does slightly misrepresent this, it was said in October while Kanjorski was running for re-election, not in Jan after he lost.

[InterestedObserver]

P.S. Starving Artist: As you enjoy your relatively unpolluted air and water, your decent housing and standard of living, your relatively safe food supply, the education you and your children were able to obtain, your civil rights (if you happen to be non-White and/or female), your 40 hour work week, right to unionize and a minimum or higher wage complete with overtime, safety and other protections and recourse for abuse, the interstate highway system, our lovely national parks, unemployment insurance and/or food stamps (should you ever need it/them), Social Security/Medicare in your old age, federally insured bank deposits, etc, etc…

take a moment and thank a fucking LIBERAL, ok?

[El_Kabong]

@TriPolar

Amazing. That by far takes the prize for the biggest load of crap dumped in this thread.

Foregt it, Jake, it’s Starving Artist. It’s pretty much a word-for-word duplicate of hundreds of posts he’s made over the years, and none of it is any more true than the first time he posted essentially the same rant.

[El_Kabong]

@InterestedObserver

Take a moment and thank a fucking LIBERAL, ok?

Dude, you’re talking to a guy who, sometime in the early '60s, stuck his fingers in his ears and never pulled them back out again. Complete waste of time, but it’s yours to waste if you want.

[DSeid]

Sam, the Kanjorski comment - without doubt unacceptable and should be condemned. Of note, he is now a former Congressman, having not been re-elected after that. He lost handily in a heavily Democratic district and those comments were part of what did him in. He was rewarded with losing his high office. And he is mocked by HuffPo now for his hypocrisy is his current call for civility.

Compare and contrast.

[Bricker]

@Blalron

Any response to post #116?

@Blalron

Cite? Please don’t respond with some anonymous liberal blogger defending it. Give us examples of elected officials (or those on who’ve won the Democratic primary for a major federal or state office) who’ve defended that rhetoric.

I contend that the distinction you’re insisting on is artifical: it’s a distinction without a difference. Why do you believe that opinion makers are limited to “those on who’ve won the Democratic primary for a major federal or state office?”

So here are some statistics to give us a picture of what’s going on:

If the data shows that Democratic politicians are receiving more death threats, wouldn’t you have to concede that one side is more violent than the other?

Yes, as your own cite says:

These sorts of statistics are a bit frightening. But they do, for better or for worse, provide us with a reasonably robust data set. If it turns out, for instance, that Democratic members of Congress are much more likely to receive such threats than Republican ones, that might tell us something meaningful. Likewise, if threats made against Mr. Obama routinely invoke his race, that could tell us something too.

It might also be possible, with careful study, to see whether there is a correlation between the frequency of different types of political rhetoric and the number of such threats. Searches of Lexis-Nexis, for instance, could determine whether violent political metaphors have in fact become more common, and if so, whether their timing coincides with with them.

I don’t know whether such data could be entirely “open source,” considering its sensitivity. But perhaps the Sergent at Arms, and other parts of the security apparatus, could make a few such statistics available to the public on a regular basis. It would probably provide us with considerably more insight into the risks posed by assassination, domestic terrorism, and other severe forms of political violence, than any degree of scrutiny of Mr. Loughner’s case could on its own.

If it turns out that Democratic members of Congress are much more likely to receive such threats than Republican ones, that might tell us something meaningful. I absolutely agree.

Do they?

[Bricker]

@DSeid

Only my apologies for not seeing that you had already posted that before I did.

But that’s okay, it was ignored when I posted it too.

FWIW, I agree with you. That’s some pretty suggestive data that bears on the op.

This is why Nate Silver is a respected statistician and you are… you.

Silver does NOT draw conclusions; he explicitly lays out what WOULD be necessary to draw conclusions and points out that the requisite analysis has not been done.

And you… are you.

[Bricker]

@TriPolar

Bricker and** Magellan01** why don’t you just post a link to the violent imagery from Democrats that you claim exists? It will be easier for you to continue your game, and more fruitful because I am already bored, but you have made no points. Do you have examples of violent imagery by Democrats or by groups supported by Democrats? If so, please post a link.

Because it takes you ten seconds to deny a cite based only on its source and us ten minutes to link, cut, and paste. It’s a bullshit tactic.

[Bricker]

@InterestedObserver

The surveys and studies did not typically define views based on party, but on self-identification AND examination of particular positions which could be objectively ranked as “left” or “right” based on generally understood definitions (such as being in favor of universal health care, say, or opposed to higher corporate tax rates)

The findings were that even though most self-identified as “moderates” or “liberals”, their responses on the particulars placed a majority firmly to the right of center (and to the right of even a majority of Americans as determined in similar surveys and polls). One conclusion was that their above average income level might have had something to do with their views. Also, many cited the limitations placed on them by their corporate employers wrt the angle/bias evident in coverage.

So… the journalists were generally “really” to the right of center.

But they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Why do you suppose that happened? That seems… er… counterintuitive.

[Khaki_Campbell]

@elucidator

Che wasn’t Che. Perhaps nobody could be Che, actually embody the spirit of revolutionary justice, its not human. Its symbolic, Sam, and the vast majority of people wearing such a shirt know that, Its like your information about the left froze solid around 1970, and hasn’t been altered since.

Well, similarly, we could say that leftists’ information about the right froze solid around 1945…

[Kearsen]

Why does this board constantly look for equality for bad ideals?
Every freaking thread turns into, well my side doesn’t do that nearly as much as your side.

You want to know why? Because you wouldn’t have a freaking thing to say about anything. Both parties are thoroughly fucked up and we all want to see that fixed but the blind partisanship of some on this board, frankly, disgusts me.
There are a gajillion threads about the shooting, more than half are attempting to lay blame on ‘rhetoric from the right’
To me, that speaks volumes about those who are furthering that cause.

[Dinsdale]

@John_Mace

Between, not among. I find the use of “among” when linking two entities to be the epitome of violent imagery.

The folks on the right are more likely to embrace military action, police action, hunting, violent sports, etc. It seems natural that they would carry that imagery into the political sphere. They are more likely to focus on punishment as a way of correcting societal problems.

On the left, it’s really only the fringe who embrace violence as a means towards an end when dealing with domestic issues. If anything, one would expect the left to use imagery from psychology or sociology in the political sphere. They are more likely to focus on the intervention side of things when dealing with societal problems.

These are obviously oversimplifications, but I think the do explain the greater prevalence of violent imagery in the Republican Party. That is not to say that the Democrats don’t use violent imagery-- they do. The difference being in quantity and degree, but not in kind.

Excellent post which bears repeating, John. Made it wort wading through the swamp of this thread.

And magellan - I agree with your 3 points. Both parties do it, we don’t need limit our scope to major candidates, and even ugly speech deserves protected. Of course, tho I support the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, that doesn’t mean I cannot criticize them for doing so. (Example only, no attempt to Godwinize.)

What I have not seen in this thread is anyone showing that liberal use of such imagery is anywhere near as prevalent, organized, or from as major figures as the conservative.

The best we’ve seen is some links of what appear to be mostly individual or small group actions in MM’s website, a couple of comments by Dem candidates/officials, one statement by Obama, and a book title by Al Franken. It really surprises me that any sentient being could even suggest that those come close to the invective routinely spewed by the likes of Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck. I’m curious - what liberal has as much influence as any one of those 3? (Not saying they don’t exist, just that they don’t readily come to mind.)

Bricker these are some pretty straightforward questions you are dodging. Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh are some pretty damned obvious examples. It sure seems that if there were anywhere near as large an example on the left, you could dig it up in less than 10 minutes.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

A CBS News poll, conducted in the wake of the recent shooting, found that more than twice as many Republicans as Democrats or Independents endorse the position that it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government (28% to 11%).

It makes sense then that more Republicans would use violent language and imagery to communicate with their constituents than other political groups would, does it not?

ETA link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/11/politics/main7237404.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Kearsen]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

A CBS News poll, conducted in the wake of the recent shooting, found that more than twice as many Republicans as Democrats or Independents endorse the position that it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government (28% to 11%).

It makes sense then that more Republicans would use violent language and imagery to communicate with their constituents than other political groups would, does it not?

ETA link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/11/politics/main7237404.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Why would anybody say otherwise? It should always be available as the ‘last resort’, of taking up arms before the government. The fact that so many others would never ever do such a thing reeks of fear and complacency.
I mean, how was this country founded again?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Kearsen

Why would anybody say otherwise? It should always be available as the ‘last resort’, of taking up arms before the government. The fact that so many others would never ever do such a thing reeks of fear and complacency.
I mean, how was this country founded again?

Yet, they did, and to the point of this debate, they did in a manner suggesting that more Republicans than others feel they should say, during a poll in the aftermath of a shooting of a sitting Congresswoman, that violence against the government is (sometimes) justified.

Apparently, there is no debate left?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s not an unreasonable position. As Kearsen notes, the government we have today might not be the one we’ve always got.

[Kearsen]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Yet, they did, and to the point of this debate, they did in a manner suggesting that more Republicans than others feel they should say, during a poll in the aftermath of a shooting of a sitting Congresswoman, that violence against the government is (sometimes) justified.

Apparently, there is no debate left?

Forgive me, with all the finger pointing as to try and pin something on a separate partisan hack I forgot what we are trying to prove/disprove.

Clearly the Republicans (as has been pointed out by Sam Stone and now you) are more at ease with the gun/ target rhetoric than the Democrats.

What is the debate? My only salient point in this thread is that we should stop trying to lay blame and say but the D’s or the R’s do this in a much greater fashion, either the actions are wrong or they are not, nuance be damned.

[Shodan]

@Dinsdale

What I have not seen in this thread is anyone showing that liberal use of such imagery is anywhere near as prevalent, organized, or from as major figures as the conservative.

That’s one of the drawbacks of anecdotal evidence - it is easy for one side or the other to handwave away whatever the other side presents.

There is no objective evidence that one side uses violent imagery more than the other, because the definition of what counts as violent imagery is politicized.

Nor is there any objective evidence that the AZ shooter was influenced by any imagery from either side, or no side at all. And yet we have a half-dozen multi-page trainwrecks, all brimming over with “that doesn’t count, and I will let you know the reason why as soon as I can figure one out that excludes my side and includes yours”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I will grant you the latter, but not the former. This thread clearly demonstrates that violent imagery is more prevalent on the right.

[Omar_Little]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I will grant you the latter, but not the former. This thread clearly demonstrates that violent imagery is more prevalent on the right.

Please share with us your opinion of by how much. 10%, 15%, 25%?

Who gives a shit?

This whole debate in the media and here on the dope, is not about stopping violence, as most of you have conceded that the rhetoric, imagery, etc. had nothing to do with the events that recently happened in Tuscon.

This is about using that unrelated event as a means to coerce people into censoring their 1st amendment rights. And that’s despicable.