There may have been some hand-wringing over his pot usage and his mental problems. Not much. And with regard to the latter, seems like its as much about treatment (we need more money and new laws!) as it is about getting the clown off the street by acting on just one of the five warnings they had.
Nope… what we need is more civility in our political discourse!!! And dammit, we need more civility now because those bastard RW TB Conservatives (are winning elections) are the problem!
The question is why the ongoing call for more civility? Could be a couple of things…
The politicians are too close to this tragedy and naturally are affected by it.
The Democrats can’t admit that they were wrong and there was no connection at all between this tragedy and any discourse of any kind. If they did that they’d have to admit that they were just being slimy politicians (and hypocrites to boot) for pointing the finger at their enemies.
It’s going to be a useful ongoing tactic to accuse Republicans of being uncivil when they try to move their agenda.
I think it’s a combination of all three… the thing is, only one of them can be justified.
So shit can get done. Who are you more likely to work with: someone who calls you Hitler or the Taliban, or someone who tries to mutually identify a problem and compromise to find a mutually acceptable solution?
Most people agree the Arizona shooting was unrelated to political rhetoric. And this emphasis on civility did not just start Saturday. It’s been a concern for some people for years.
I’m confused about the need for this thread. The question has been answered by those of us actually calling for such civility in every Loughner/Giffords thread in GD and the BBQ Pit. Including both of yours.
Your major rebuttal seems to be that Loughner’s actions were unconnected to -or at least not actually motivated by- political rhetoric. That was answered shortly after we even started discussing the shootings. Consensus is that a call for civility is valid and proper on its own without blaming rhetoric for Tucson. Refer to the threads.
Your second rebuttal seems to be that such calls will primarily be directed at Republicans. Well, that may actually be a new item in these discussions, as it’s the first time I’ve noticed a direct admission from a non lefty that the worst of the rhetoric actually does come from the right. Nice going there, I guess but you could’ve done that in one of the other gajillion discussions.
You’re saying that in the 15-20 pages related to this tragedy the consensus is that the Democrats and the media were wrong to point the finger? I’m not buying it.
Civility on it’s own is just fine… why did it take this tragedy to figure that out?
As for the admission that you think I made, I find you to be intellectually dishonest at best. The worst of the finger pointing is easily identified … that doesn’t mean that I admit its validity.
**We need more civility in our political discourse!! **
Yes, because political discourse should be about debate of the issues, and lack of civility does not further that goal in any way; in fact, it hinders it.
However, I dispute the calm assertion above that the lack of blame in the recent shootings is such a settled issue. I read and participated in all those threads, and I’m afraid I did not leave them with a perception that most people accepted that the strong rhetoric was not to blame. Granted, only a few people explicitly made the claim, but many others joined in the condemnation without disavowing the claim, leaving the reader (me, anyway) with the impression that the idea enjoyed some fair amount of support.
“Democrats and the media” didn’t point the finger. Some individuals have, and that’s the same way it is on the board, but the groups en masse definitely did not.
It didn’t. So I guess it’s appropriate that this tragedy appears unlikely to change anything.
There was no link this time, but since ratcheting up the rhetoric only encourages the outlying fringe element, toning things down a bit might prevent a *real *politically-motivated attack. Plus, it’s hard to get things done when any other viewpoint is considered to be “evil”.
The OP keeps looking for reasons to paint the “other side” as being unreasonable. Funny, that.
Sorry, I was commenting on the OP’s apparent position that we don’t actually need more civility in our political discourse. Lame attempt at a joke. Carry on.
That’s an inaccurate charicature of what I said. Please try again.
Here’s the root of your “confusion” (and frankly, I can’t tell if it’s willful confusion or honest misunderstanding). It’s not just uncivil rhetoric that’s the problem; it’s what I’ve been terming “eliminationist” rhetoric. I’ve explained it elsewhere, but I’ll give you a post in a few minutes outlining why I think such rhetoric is especially dangerous. And I won’t introduce any new terms or use the term “eliminationist”.
My mistake. Then are you saying that the rhetoric of the left (calling for civility, etc.) has a chilling effect on the legislative activities of the right?
The OP would like to be able to follow political discourse without a dictionary at hand, and is frustrated at having spent a great deal of time searching for “civil” under S. He’ll forget all about it shortly.
Look, I don’t mean to be obstructionist, here, but I have to say that I feel, Marley, that you are downplaying the degree of support from this board’s most vocal citizens to the idea that Palin and the harsh rhetoric were to blame for this.
This wasn’t a discussion from a year ago. We just had it. Read the threads again – can you honestly say this was a few hotheads, and the majority of folks were rejecting the idea? If they were, they were certainly coy about it.
I’d rather do hard time than reread all the threads we’ve had about all this. I said Democrats, the press, and the board as a whole have not pointed the finger. I’ve seen polls that show a majority of people agree that crosshairs and mean remarks are not to blame for the shooting. “This board’s most vocal citizens” is a smaller and more partisan group of people.
No. As far as I’m concerned some of the discourse was irresponsible long before the shooting happened and would be just as irresponsible if it had never happened. But in the interest of being factual and being civil, people shouldn’t say the rhetoric was responsible for the shootings if they mean it was irresponsible in general.
The type of rhetoric that some of us (primarily speaking from the left) find dangerous and irresponsible is the type that paints political opponents as implacable and callous enemies to the interests or wellbeing of their listeners, promotes fear of those political opponents and combines these with violent imagery or appeals to direct and unspecified action from the listeners.
I’ve said before that this type of rhetoric is definitely used by people from any and all political stripes. However, it becomes particularly dangerous and irresponsible –and has an especially poisonous affect on the political landscape – when it’s directed at an audience which is particularly attached to stereotypical beliefs and particularly angry and distrustful already, and repeated using almost identical language by a large bloc of public figures against the same political targets.
There are some fairly well moderated discussions about this on the internets, including afew in Politico (hardly a leftist site) which represent the gamut of views on the subject. I agree with the summary paragraphs from this take on the subject:
What seems to need the most “toning down” in our political discourse however, is exaggeration and dishonesty. On HCR: “Death panels” and “government takeover of healthcare” from the right, “the Republican plan for health care is ‘die quickly’” from the left. These paint political differences on an issue not as the policy debate it is, but as a war between the speaker and a vast unreasonable monster on the other side. This is toxic to democracy.