If we’re going to discuss imagery then I think TV and video games create a more pervasive atmosphere of violence. The shooter is mimicking the movie Taxi Driver where the guy shaves his head into a mohawk just before his attempt to assassinate a politician. This is considered an American classic.
And computer games… many of them are nothing but pure violence. Hours of killing fun 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.
Yea let’s look at TV. Can you name a Democratic equivalent of Fox News? How about the wack jobs on AM radio who think the government death squad is gonna kill granny? Might that be encouraging a hostile and dangerous environment a wee bit more than Grand Theft Auto?
As noted earlier
Really, the reaction to that comment makes the point that it does not play well to enough on the Democratic side. Again, this is really very simple. A large stream of the Conservative movement, and certainly the enthusiastic stream of the movement right now, is populist. The liberal side, at this point in time, has a much smaller populist thread and is more dominated by those who consider themselves the intellectual elite and statists. You appeal to populist movements in all or nothing, absolutist, terms - Good vs. Evil - not in shades of grey and nuanced positions. That messaging sells well, no doubt, but it can more easily veer into over the top regions.
I think the fact that you don’t want to engage my challenge is very telling. It’s a tacit acknowledgement that if we played the dueling hatefull quotes game of elected Democrats and elected Republicans, Republicans are going to come out on top.
Watching Sean Hannity or Glen Beck (or insert entertainer of your choice) is very different from voting for them. Even I watch Fox News sometimes and I’m quite liberal. But if we went on Nielson ratings as our evidence, my viewership would count as agreement with them. If I vote for someone, I am in effect saying that the policies he or she is endorsing should actually be carried out.
Yes, I can name an equivalent of Fox News that talks about death panels. Meet ABC and their coverage of government denial of health care:
Patient Cut From Transplant List Dies: Arizona’s Death Panel?
And it talks about Arizona so… to answer your question, no.
It isn’t necessarily which side does “more” but it is who on each side is doing it. It seems to me that the more violent rhetoric and imagery that is coming from the right is coming from its most prominent proponents and spokespeople, while the stuff that is coming from the left is from far more fringe and/or minor elements. I mean I am sure we could create lists that are equally long annd egregious, but if Bobby Smith from Santa Barbara talkes about how much he want to hurt Darrell Issa on his blog and then Sarah Palin tweets folks to reload, that is one each, but really it isn’t equal.
Well, you raise a good point. Viewership does not unequivocally equal approval.
But even if I accept that… where does the problem lie? Palin, the failed VP candidate who holds no political office? Angle, the failed senatorial candidiate who holds no office? Limbaugh, Beck, the broadcasters who hold no office?
You claim that voting shows endorsement – but who voted for these people?
Then what was the point of TriPolar’s announcement that he felt I didn’t understand the hearsay rule?
You must have missed the Obama comment about bringing a gun to a knife fight. Unless you don’t really consider him to be a prominent member of the left.
Are Republicans literally bringing knifes to meetings with Obama?
As the thread title clearly states, the question is not whether the ‘left and right’ use such imagery equally, it’s whether the US Republican and Democratic parties use such imagery equally. You still have not demontrated that the US Democratic party had anything to do with the production of the film “Death of a President”, so in my view your cite is irrelevant. Thanks for your kind words regarding my intelligence and reading ability.
Palin was the second item on the ticket, but we have to remember that McCain was (in 2008) a 72 year old cancer survivor. The actuarial chance that he would die in office and Palin would ascend to the Presidency were much higher than with most presidential candidates. Voters who pulled the lever for McCain thought that a Palin presidency was either an acceptable (or even desirable) risk, or else they wouldn’t have voted for him.
I won’t comment on Palin’s role, if any, in the Tucson shooting, until more facts are available. But let’s look at the effect that her speech had in 2008.
You could easily dismiss this connection as a mere coincidence. But that’s what makes this kind of rhetoric so insidious. As long as she doesn’t explictly tell people to commit murder, there’s always going to be plausible deniability. I’d compare her irresponsible speech actions to drunken driving. Drunken drivers virtually never intend to injure people, and most of the time they get to their destination safetly. But their reckless behavior nonetheless puts people at unneccesary risk.
Is Sarah Palin literally putting congressman in her rifle sights?
Not necessarily true. They only had two choices; their choice of McCain could well have been distaste for palin that didn’t rise to the level of choosing Obama in response. The choice was not approbation for Palin, in other words.
This is why we say correlation is not causation. If the threats roughly coincided with her selection as the VP nominee and the beginnings of her speeches, then they also coincided with the primary race between Obama and Clinton being settled, and the reality of a black man for President sinking in. That alone, with no rhetoric needed, can easily be the cause for increased threats. (And lest you lay that at the feet of the GOP, I can easily point to several video clips of Democratic voters in primary swing states like Pennsylvania saying they would vote for Clinton because of Obama’s race.)
And I continue to contend that this distinction is not relevant. Daily Kos and Huff Post are opinion-shapers for Democrats, even though they are not themselves political parties. Your effort to exclude them provides an artificial boost to your position.
See? When your guy does it, you fall over yourself to point out the lack of literal meaning; you give every benefit of the doubt.
And the other side does it, you presume the worst.
Hey, now, no one asked whether I thought Daily Kos and Huffington Post were relevant. Actually, I don’t have much of a problem with that, since they are US-based and have at least are run by (presumably) registered Democrats. Channel 4 in the UK? Not so much. In any event, as I already said, I’m perfectly fine with readers deciding for themselves which view is the correct one.
Even if there’s not an iron clad proof of causation here, the correlation is still enough that an ethical person in her place would reevaluate her messaging and tone down the hate speech.
It took decades of denial before the tobacco industry admitted that smoking causes lung cancer. They just kept telling us that there wasn’t enough evidence to draw any conclusions. It’d be a real tragedy if it takes the same amount of time before the hate mongers admit they did anything wrong.
What examples of hate speech do you have of Mrs. Palin since last Saturday?
And is using violent imagery now considered “hate speech”?
It’s far more likely that the shooter spent his youth playing computer games that were non-stop killing for fun. Put another way, the chance of a random bit of political rhetoric affecting his mental state or hundreds of hours of killing for fun on a computer game it is more likely that the entertainment value of killing adds to the desensitization of the act as well as a Pavlovian link of death and pleasure.