Am I a hypocritical little Lib?

Great Debates
1

Not really a Lib, per se, but I consider myself forward-thinking, progressive and in most social situations am quite liberal in what I feel others can do if they are so inclined. Keeping that in mind…

Like most Liberal-minded folks, I found the attacks against the arts that were prevalent in the '80s and '90s to be a case of ignoring the real problems. I thought blaming Judas Priest for causing suicide, rap music for instigating violence, movies and video games for causing criminal behavior was scapegoating while avoiding problems. I felt that if someone was so messed up in the head that they felt that a band or movie told them to do something, that they would have been just as messed up to have something else push them over the edge.

Whereas also like most liberal-minded folks, I cannot help but feel anger and at least some responsibility when media outlets or politicians unleash incindiary rhetoric that incites people to assassinate politicians or kill abortion providers.

However, I cannot help but see a very problematic double standard above and I don’t know how I can say “A band should be able to release whatever lyrics they want and not be responsible for the small percentage of fucked up individuals who take it the wrong way” and at the same time say “Sarah Palin and Fox News need to calm the rhetoric because of a small percentage of fucked up individuals who take it the wrong way.”

I like being liberal-minded.
I don’t like being a hypocrite.

How can I reconcile this? How do all of the rest of the Liberal-minded folks here do this since I know that I am not alone in how I feel about these two different, but connected ideas?

2

Well, I think that if you are going to say inflammatory things then you should stand by the things you say. I obviously don’t know that what Palin said influenced Loughner but I think that this should really be an epiphany to people who have been saying things like don’t retread, reload and that the american public should be armed and dangerous. It’s all fun and games to say these things to your base and get people stoked but when someone actually does it, it’s traumatic and scary and, well, violent. And I seriously question the moral integrity of any of the pundits and politicians who don’t use this opportunity to engage in a little introspection and self-reflection.

3

All of that is fine and good but do you feel the same way when someone sues a record label, band or video game makers for releasing art that supposedly influenced similar behavior?

4

just copy what others do that you will get along just fine. :slight_smile:

5

Yeah, but liberals were the ones leading the charge. Or Dems, anyway. For the children, of course. Pubbies get distracted easily by particulars, especially anything to do with patriotism or religion, but if video games or rap as an entire genre were banned or heavily restricted I’d expect the Dems to have played the biggest role. As a hardcore video game nerd I thank my lucky power stars that Hillary didn’t become POTUS.

6

Politicians aren’t artists. Politicians have a responsibility to the people they’re elected to serve, and to the Constitution they swear to uphold. There is no comparison there.

7

Games and music aren’t the same as political rhetoric. If some country singer goes on and on about the man who done her wrong, is that a command to go forth and shoot men? Of course not. Making political speeches about the virtues of guns and violence, about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and how the other side is composed of tyrants; that’s a call to murder. Especially since it’s not remotely true; that does matter, despite all the “oh both sides are as bad as the other so you can’t criticize the Republicans” excuses we keep hearing.

8

Pundits are not politicians, and I don’t see Palin holding or running for any offices at the moment. Pundits, commentators, and speechmakers are much closer to artists and entertainers that they are to officeholders.

9

I congratulate the OP on having the honesty to post this thread.

But I can’t help noticing that the OP’s question is basically “Help me find a rationale that allows me to keep both beliefs,” and not “…or maybe I need to discard one belief as wrong…”

10

No.

Political news shows represent themselves as authorities in their fields, and present their material as being a factual interpretation of the truth. Regardless of political side, such speech is irresponsible when presented as coming from a trusted news outlet, and is very different from the personal opinion of a film director or musical artist. It is closest to something like a media hoax or joke report designed to get ratings. If such a thing ever resulted in violence or deaths there would be public outcry on both sides of the aisle. This type of stuff is a low grade version of the same concept, nothing less.

11

So, influencing people to violence using political imagery is bad, but influencing people to commit mayhem for personal reasons is acceptable?

12

Palin is part of a news show? Odd, I thought she was part of a show about expressing political opinions, much like Crossfire (a name that obviously must have inspired dozens of shooting).

For the OP, not necessarily. Context matters, and there is a difference in context between politics and art. Although it is a worthy question to explore, in the end the only person who can really answer it for you is yourself.

My answer would be that if you get angry at all over the top political rhetoric regardless of source, you’re not a hypocrite. You’ve just decided the difference in context is important.

13

The only advice I can give the OP is to consider that Jared Loughner is not a good example of anything except the need to diagnose and treat schizophrenia. He’s about as useful as a demonstration of the result of political rhetoric as a lightning strike.

14

Cherry pick much? Palin is certainly regarded as a political figure, and represents herself as an expert in her field : Politics. Unless you are arguing that Palin’s opinions on any given show carry exactly as much weight as say…Miley Cyrus’s do.

15

Unfortunately, to me, the answer is Yes. I have no respect for her opinion on anything, and I consider myself a conservative old mossback.

16

No, I’d give Palin’s opinions on shotgunning, outdoor living, and cold weather more weight than Cyrus’. But that’s probably it.

17

There was a psychiatrist (or sociologist, can’t remember) on NPR’s New Hour last night who at least tried to quantify the effect of political rhetoric such as Palin’s on the level of violence in the country. Can’t remember exactly what the conclusion was or how she came about it, but basically she said it was minor to negligible.

I know this is very difficult to get this kind of data, but unless you have some real, scientific basis for saying that rhetoric like SP’s actually does incite people to violence, then you shouldn’t go around saying that you know it does.

Personally, I don’t like SP’s rhetoric because I think it debases the political discourse. I haven’t seen anything that tells me her level of rhetoric rises to the level of incendiary speech.

BTW, thanks to the OP for opening this thread. I was thinking about opening a similar one myself.

18

There needs to be a distinction between art and entertainment. Art, real art has a responsibility to carry a message of some sort - even an unpleasant message. Art uses devices beyond mere syntax to communicate a message. It plays on our emotions, instincts, feelings.

Entertainment is someting less. It pleasures us, it occupies us, it amuses us. Entertainment is a light, fleeting thing. It has its place, but it should never be confused with art, and entertainment’s message (if there is one) should not be taken too seriously.

Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, Coulter and the other right-wing noise machines are essentially entertainers and should not be taken seriously. Even some of their adherants understand this. Not long ago I was involved in one of those long, pointless arguements with a Rush enthusiast. I gave examples & cites to prove unequivalently that the fat s.o.b. had lied repeatedly & deliberately. My opponent shrugged it off by pointing out that “Rush is an entertainer, not a journalist, so he’s not necessarily bound to telling the truth”. She then segued into the non-sequitor “truthiness” arguement that “even if his message is not entirely factual it resonates with me, so it must be right”. The problem isn’t so much with the wingnut talking heads as it is with the weak-minded idiots that listen to them.

An artist has a solemn duty to speak truth, in some way. An entertainer’s only responsibility is to amuse. We, the public, the recipients of arts & entertainment have a responsibility to distinguish between the two.

I’m currently reading Herbert Mitgang’s "Dangerous Dossiers, Exposing the Secret War Against America’s Greatest Authors". It deals with the McCarthy era and J. Edgar Hoover’s long-running investigations of 20th century writers, actors and artists, some of which are still maintained as top-secret material. This harrassmnet of the arts was odious and distinctly un-American, but quite understandable from the point of view of Hoover, Reagan, McCarthy et. al. They knew who their enemies were.

As long as we are able to make an honest distinction between artists and entertainers, it is not hypocritical to promote openness and freedom for the one while simultaneously wanting to put a lid on the other.
SS

19

No, because songs and games (with rare exceptions) don’t do that and aren’t designed to.

I disagree.Iin our present political climate, “pundits, commentators, and speechmakers” are just as much politicians as the people who actually call themselves politicians are. They portray themselves as something to be taken seriously; they are taken seriously. When Limbaugh and a member of Congress clash, the Congressman is the one who probably backs down.

In fact, I’ll amend my previous statement. It’s just as bad for games or songs to call for violence when they are doing so seriously, to an audience that the creators know is likely to take it seriously. Singing about the glories of killing Jews and blacks to a bunch of neonazi skinheads is immoral because it’s a reasonable worry that they might take you seriously and do just that. Just as it’s wrong to make speeches to a bunch of conservatives that they should go and kill government officials or gays or doctors is wrong, because it’s a reasonable worry that they’ll do just that; they have.

20

I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘art’ versus ‘politics’ or ‘entertainment’ or ‘opinion’ or ‘news.’ It’s a matter of message and effect.

I think if you’re a liberal who denies any possibility that popular entertainments, especially those enjoyed by adolescents, are capable of shaping their audience in counterproductive ways, then yes, you’re intellectually inconsistent to be concerned about the dangers of political commentary, and you’re hypocritical if you call for action against one form of influence but not the other.

To satisfy John Mace, who invited me to this thread to participate, and with the indulgence of the OP, this can be pretty simply stated: It’s right to be concerned about any form of influence towards behavior you find undesirable.

For instance, I despise songs that glamorize street violence, drug trafficing and hatred for law enforcement. I don’t mind criticising that trend in music and disputing its message. I believe that sort of criticism is most effective coming from other artists who produce the particular musical genre or music in general, and from those who promote the genre and music in general.

I believe its healthy for responsible elements of society to openly disapprove of popular messaging that works against peace and cooperation, but that it’s unhealthy for society to censor or legally suppress such messaging. And I don’t think any of that is inconsistent or hypocritical.