Bullets as a metaphor

[Jas09]

Here’s another (admittedly more marginal) right-winger supporting Breivik’s take on Norways immigrant situation: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/01/284011/pam-geller-race-mixing-breivik-right/

She is a Fox News regular and has appeared with Gingrich’s campaign in the past.

[Bricker]

@Jas09

Pat Buchanan said that Breivik was right in thinking that a large-scale conflict between Islam and Christian forces in Europe was inevitable.

Oh.

Well, I imagine Breivik took a chemistry class once, and he said during that class that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. I think he’s right about that. But I hope no one would quote my line in a effort to suggest I approved of his crimes.

Personally, it seems pretty obvious that any elected official will denounce violence committed by their side. That’s just common sense. I do, however, notice that most of the actually violence being committed in the name of political causes these days seems to be coming from the right.

Tree spiking? Protests against foie gras? Or burning homes and firebombing vehicles?

[Jas09]

To your first point, I think you can tell the distinction between opinions re: water formation and opinions re: the inevitability of violent racial conflict.

To the second, I was referring to violence which caused the loss of life. As awful as all of your cited examples are, I didn’t see anything remotely close to the OK City bombing, the murder of a doctor, or the killing of kids at a summer camp. YMMV.

[Bricker]

@Jas09

Here’s another (admittedly more marginal) right-winger supporting Breivik’s take on Norways immigrant situation: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/01/284011/pam-geller-race-mixing-breivik-right/

She is a Fox News regular and has appeared with Gingrich’s campaign in the past.

Had you ever heard of her before this?

I had not.

[Bricker]

@Jas09

To your first point, I think you can tell the distinction between opinions re: water formation and opinions re: the inevitability of violent racial conflict.

To the second, I was referring to violence which caused the loss of life. As awful as all of your cited examples are, I didn’t see anything remotely close to the OK City bombing, the murder of a doctor, or the killing of kids at a summer camp. YMMV.

Left-wing anti-austerity riots in Greece?

[Dissonance]

@Bricker

Well, I imagine Breivik took a chemistry class once, and he said during that class that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. I think he’s right about that. But I hope no one would quote my line in a effort to suggest I approved of his crimes.

Yes, because Breivik went on a killing spree over factual chemistry matters.

Oh wait, no he didn’t.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

But there were those few who, at the time, either out of rhetorical excess or honest conviction, that ANY reference to bullets, shooting, targets, and the like was ill-conceived. The majority of people, I grant, had a more restrained view, and thus wouldn’t find this instance problematic.

Could you name the people you consider to be in the former group, and quote their statements to the effect?

[Jas09]

@Bricker

Left-wing anti-austerity riots in Greece?

There we go. That’s much more like it. Of course, that’s in Europe, and the discussion here had been entirely about American political violence.

And yeah, I had barely heard of Pam Geller before… I think from her blog “Atlas Shrugs”. She also made some news re: Israel at one point.

[Sandwich]

@Blake

… You seriously are suggesting that no prominent left-winger has ever said that any person who committed left-wing violence had a point? That not one single prominent left-winger has ever said that Lenin, or Nelson Mandela or Che Guevera?

Actually, even some right wingers think Nelson Mandela ‘had a point’. Admittedly, some other right wingers don’t approve of citizens who resist a tyrannous government, but that’s a different debate.

[Omar_Little]

Satan Sandwich…?

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Left-wing anti-austerity riots in Greece?

@Jas09

There we go. That’s much more like it. Of course, that’s in Europe, and the discussion here had been entirely about American political violence.

Um…

@Jas09

… or the killing of kids at a summer camp…

[Bricker]

@Dissonance

Yes, because Breivik went on a killing spree over factual chemistry matters.

Oh wait, no he didn’t.

Correct.

Utterly irrelevant to any comments made here, but correct.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

Could you name the people you consider to be in the former group, and quote their statements to the effect?

From this thread:

@spark240

I think references to shooting at the President, as rhetorical device, and even as a characterization of opponents, are indeed unwise and tasteless. Particularly in the political climate we’ve had for the last several years.

@miss_elizabeth

Nonetheless, violent gun-based rhetoric has no place in the political discourse.

@shiftless

Having read the posts anyway, I’m going to say +1 to Post #17.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

Could you name the people you consider to be in the former group, and quote their statements to the effect?

Here are some others:

@WhyNot

@Mr. Excellent

I suppose they could, if they were so inclined, carefully strip all public speeches and advertisements of any militant language that could be interepreted by a crazy person as an actual call for violence.

Yes, let’s start there.

@Mr. Excellent

But this seems an excessively onerous restriction to place on our political speech.

Why? What’s so onerous about saying “vote them out of office” instead of “reload”?

(Again, I don’t want to legally restrict their speech, I simply think public opinion can/should sway them to realize that it’s not worth it. If they don’t care about the loss of life, maybe they’ll care about the loss of elections.)

@BobLibDem

Or perhaps the Palin sycophants who need incontrovertible evidence that Palin’s crosshairs and violent talk of gunplay had a direct relationship to the shooting instead of condemning her vitriol on general principle.

@BobLibDem

That may well be. But Palin’s crosshair map and her talk of gunplay, and Angle’s talk of second amendment remedies can and should be condemned regardless on whether or not they were factors in the shootings.

@Johnny_L.A

You want him to admit that he’s wrong that Palin supporters want incontrovertible evidence or a link between Palin’s rhetoric and the shooting? ISTM that that’s what they demand, rather than accept that violent rhetoric has been demonstrated in other cases to abet violence.

@Hampshire

Wow, how damning can you get? Actual cross-hair symbols (surveyor’s markings my ass) with the message “We’ve diagnosed the problem… Help us prescribe the solution.”

[Jas09]

@Bricker

Um…

@Jas09

… or the killing of kids at a summer camp…

Ah, yes. I obviously should not have included that in the list. Strike it and leave OKC and the Tiller murder, since those are on-topic to the debate about whether left-wing or right-wing political violence in the US is more prevalent.

I’m not really sure how the Greek protests even tie in the with political left in the US anyways - if I’m understanding the groups involved in the violence (socialists and anarchists), they are pretty outside of what would be considered fringe here. Breivik’s politics, on the other hand, are right at home.

[Bricker]

@Jas09

Breivik’s politics, on the other hand, are right at home.

I’m not sure I agree with this claim.

For Breivik – even at the age of 21 – a nose job was the logical next step in his desire for physical perfection.

He had a drastic solution, too, for curing what he saw as the ills of multicultural Norway. He would slaughter government workers and the children of the Norwegian socialist elite as the opening salvo in a new crusade against what he perceived as the creeping Islamification of western Europe. His plan was laid down in his manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. The year 2083 signals when Breivik was convinced the civil war he hoped to start would be over.

[Bricker]

@Jas09

To the second, I was referring to violence which caused the loss of life. As awful as all of your cited examples are, I didn’t see anything remotely close to the OK City bombing, the murder of a doctor, or the killing of kids at a summer camp. YMMV.

Well, let’s see. There’s Amy Bishop:

A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.

Then there was Joe Stack, who wrote:

The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

…and then flew his plane into an IRS building.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

From this thread:

I’m afraid I can’t agree that your examples suggest;

@Bricker

But there were those few who, at the time, either out of rhetorical excess or honest conviction, that ANY reference to bullets, shooting, targets, and the like was ill-conceived. The majority of people, I grant, had a more restrained view, and thus wouldn’t find this instance problematic.

Or at least, that we can’t assume so.

**spark240 **has probably the most apt answer in terms of this thread, but he specifically talks about shooting the president. miss elizabeth, BobLibDem, and Johnny L.A. all specify that violent rhetoric of some kind is also part of the problem. WhyNot specifies militant speech (or, at least, agrees with the suggestion). Hampshire specifies such symbols in conjunction with a particular message.

None of them indicate that they have a problem with such symbols and references simply in and of themselves.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

I’m afraid I can’t agree that your examples suggest; Or at least, that we can’t assume so.

**spark240 **has probably the most apt answer in terms of this thread, but he specifically talks about shooting the president. miss elizabeth, BobLibDem, and Johnny L.A. all specify that violent rhetoric of some kind is also part of the problem. WhyNot specifies militant speech (or, at least, agrees with the suggestion). Hampshire specifies such symbols in conjunction with a particular message.

None of them indicate that they have a problem with such symbols and references simply in and of themselves.

How is a reference to bullets NOT militant?

Come one – you’re bending over backwards to avoid this conclusion. If you were on the other side of this question, you’d be posting definitions of ‘militant’ (of or related to warfare or fighting) and pointing out that bullets are a prime tool of warfare.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

How is a reference to bullets NOT militant?

Come one – you’re bending over backwards to avoid this conclusion. If you were on the other side of this question, you’d be posting definitions of ‘militant’ (of or related to warfare or fighting) and pointing out that bullets are a prime tool of warfare.

I’m really not. I might well suggest that if you were on the other side, you’d be pointing out how bullets and shooting have perfectly peaceful applications from target shooting or in competitive events. And then it would turn into a gun control thread, as these things do.

If these posters believed that any references to bullets (or shooting, or targets, or the like) was inherently militant - then why would they feel the need to point out that such things were violent and militant? **miss elixabeth **could simply have said “gun-based rhetoric”; BobLibDem could simply have mentioned “talk of gunplay”. They didn’t; they specified violence. **Johnny L.A. **specifically says that violent rhetoric is the problem, not even mentioning bullets and the like.