oh no doubt about it. While she knows no discretion, us normal people do.
It’s much more realistic for her less diehard and borderline supporters to accept that her rhetoric is out of line and tasteless than it is that she’s culpable in mass murder. That’s the kind of charge I’d prefer to see levied at her.
No one is claiming she gave marching orders to this loon. The responsibility we are talking about involves an atmosphere that mixes guns and gun metaphors with politics. Maybe she is too stupid to have anticipated that something like this would happen, but at this point anyone with moral decency would pull back, and not go through an exercise of self-justification.
As I said in the GD thread, the facts appear to back up the theory that this guy’s a nut.
However, whether the incident is related or not, Palin deserves contempt for her rhetoric, and a double heap of contempt for the “surveyor’s marks” weasling.
Even in times and places unsaturated with the current paranoid climate, political assasination has always been an outlet for the severely mentally ill: paranoid delusions being what they are.
In fact, the common law test for criminal insanity - the so-called “McNaghton Rules” - developed out of just such an occurance, way back in 1843.
When you think about it, paranoid delusions of being persecuted by the powerful never goes out of style.
I’ll make you an offer: for every example of violent rhetoric from the left that you can track down, I’ll donate $10 to the RNC. For every example of violent rhetoric from the right that I can track down, you donate $10 to the DNC. You up for that?
(Note: I’m not actually seriously making this offer, largely because it’s logistically impossible to determine what actually counts, and also because it would be pretty damn inappropriate.)
(And for the record, I condemn violent rhetoric from anyone. I’m 100% sure, however, that there are orders of magnitude more of it coming from the right, at least if we limit ourselves to prominent best-selling powerful opinion-makers, elected officials, and former elected officials.)
I think it goes further than not thinking that they might do some real damage; speech writing is a science at this point, and I don’t doubt that they know exactly what they’re saying.
That’s how I see it.
That would be fair and reasonable.
“Personality disorder” - that puts into words something I’ve been feeling about her. There’s something wrong with that woman.
Because actors don’t sway public opinion when they speak?
I know what the deal is.
In your little liberal heart of hearts, you honestly don’t see the liberal rhetoric as being that bad, because it’s RIGHT. You know it’s horrible to put a SNIPERS WANTED graphic over President Bush’s picture, but it’s so understandable, because the man’s a smirking chimp that lied us into a war. The outrage is just… forgiveable. Anyone can understand it.
But Palin’s an idiot. What she stands for is wrong. Those who oppose her are correct. So there’s NOTHING understandable when Palin does this kind of tactic, because she’s just plain wrong.
You know it. I know it. That’s why this discussion rages on and on now. That’s why examples from the left are hand-waved away. Because Bush was WRONG, and fury against him was RIGHT; Palin is WRONG, and fury from her is WRONG.
Tell the truth and shame the devil. That’s it, isn’t it?
We’re not going to get rid of the crazies but we don’t have to work them up into a lather either.
I don’t know that this incident was the result of all the hateful rhetoric but it does highlight that the rhetoric was poisonous enough that most people wouldn’t be surprised if there was a link.
And you don’t see the difference between political speech by the nominees of your party, and unsanctioned fringe speech from unoffical liberal sources?
That seemed the most charitable explanation. The other is that you are (collectively) too blind to recognize the poison when it comes from your side, or too dishonest to admit that poison comes from your side.
But if you wish to glom on to one of those narratives, be my guest. If you wish to offer one I haven’t thought of, be my guest too.
But this post seems suspiciously like the usual “Bricker must fight using the Marquis of Queenbury rules; his opponents are free to use the chairs, knives, and 2x4s to score hits at any time.” No one seems to worry too much about creating motivations for Palin, the shooter, or anyone else on the right, but my creating motivations for the left is a terribly poor show. Right?
Oh, bullshit. Palin’s rhetoric and iconography are asinine and obnoxious. But they’re not especially out of line or unusual for any politician or pundit, on the right or the left. Some of her stuff was clearly in poor taste. She was wrong to put it up and she was right to take it down. That doesn’t mean her rhetorical choices influenced the shooter in any meaningful way. The guy is insane. Blaming Palin’s rhetoric for Loughner’s state of mind is akin to blaming the Beatles for the Manson Family. And unlike the current case, we actually know that Manson was aware of the Beatles. We don’t know what was going through Loughner’s mind at the time leading up to the shooting.
Sorry, psychosis doesn’t work that way. And Palin is hardly the only person in the world who uses populist rhetoric. There are many people in this country who actively and explicitly call for the literal murder and violent overthrow of the current government. To the extent that a violent psychotic’s actions can be influenced by any one person, what makes you think Palin influenced him any more than a random guy on YouTube yammering about the gold standard?
The DLC is unsanctioned fringe speech? The DCCC is? They both had maps with targets on them. Why is Palin’s map dangerous and theirs not?
I know why.
It’s because their message is GOOD. They want to replace Republicans with Democrats. Palin’s message is BAD. She wants to replace Democrats with Republicans.