In the interest of clarity or something like it, it’s worth pointing out that at least on this board, there’s little agreement about what kind of language is the problem. There’s disagreement about what type of rhetoric, who it comes from, and pretty much everything else.
Can’t blame you for that decision… but “the board as a whole” doesn’t really have a voice. “The board’s most vocal citizens,” on the other hand, do.
The net effect from those threads was NOT to make me believe that the board as a whole didn’t see a link between Palin and the shootings. It was the exact opposite.
+1.
Hell, +100. Well written. And exactly right.
Some people definitely believe there is a link and have said so. I’m not denying that. I’m saying that there is not enough people to say “Democrats and the media” or the board blamed the right, as the OP has done. In the thread that started as this news broke, a few people blamed conservatives and a bunch of people told them to shut up. (The staff did discourage that conversation in that forum.) The nature of that discussion is that people who think this is the Republicans’ fault go on and on about it, and people who disagree either disagree and leave, or avoid the discussion altogether.
Well, I guess you’re correct about the lack of consensus, but I did say “some of us.” I think I’m not the only one on the SD to cite that general categorization of factors, though. And it’s the general position of what I think is at least a significant plurarity of well known commentators from the left.
Could just be the position I’m most persuaded by, though.
I don’t disagree with your version of what is irresponsible. I just think there is definitely some variety in what people are saying is irrseponsible - or maybe I have just read too much bickering over what a target means compared to what crosshairs mean.
I haven’t argued that the rhetoric was clearly causal in this incident. However, I still maintain that there is no way at this point to have firmly concluded that it wasn’t.
It seems to me that some would suggest that just because the person involved in this incident appears to have schizophrenia, that he therefore was not influenced by vitriolic political rhetoric. That is a flawed line of reasoning.
If there is convincing evidence that this shooter wasn’t influenced by political rhetoric, I haven’t heard it yet.
As I pointed out in another thread, the board’s “most vocal citizens” are crazy people. Now, I’ll grant that there are non-crazy people who also initially laid the blame at the feet of the Palinettes, and some who are continuing to try to blame something on them (“well, their angry violent rhetoric didn’t contribute to this shooting, but it’s still dangerous”).
I’m a little torn here.
On the one hand, I don’t like to see “my side” engage in this sort of behavior (not that I don’t think the violent rhetoric is inappropriate, but bitching about it in connection with the Giffords incident isn’t either).
On the other hand, Democrats seem to be making noticeable gains from this incident, in much the same way Republicans made gains post-9/11 (though obviously not on the same scale). I can’t say I’m unhappy about that, and part of me wants to call Rush Limbaugh and say “karma’s a bitch, huh?”
I’ve said the same thing. I think the odds are that his motives were idiosyncratic because he’s crazy, but there are things we don’t know - including why he thinks he did this. I’m in no hurry to point fingers at anybody, but we don’t need to pretend we know everything either. The specifics will come out eventually and the civility thing has been an issue for years regardless.
Actually, it’s classic argumentum ad ignoratium. It’s for the proponent of a proposition to adduce evidence in his favor. The default assumption is always ‘No.’ When you say, “We don’t have any evidence that he wasn’t, so he was,” THAT is flawed reasoning. We may only say, “We have no evidence, and thus can reach no conclusions.”
Bear in mind that there is the kind of RW for whom, and in perfect accord with his stated principles, “So shit can get done” is the exact opposite of a good reason.
However, this is an absolutely classic Prisoner’s Dilemma situation. The best solution for all is that no one lies. However, If the Democrats start being honest, for example, the rational thing for the GOP to do is to continue lying. Therefore the equilibrium position is that both parties will lie, and lie like dogs.
Given that this is a repeated game, there should be the possibility of an enforcement mechanism to keep people at the prefered point - honesty in politics. However, the only possible enforcement agency is the electorate, and it has repeatedly shown it prefers to be lied to.
So we are stuck at a sub-optimal outcome as a result of purely rational behavior by the parties. Once again, we get the politics we deserve.
Well, Alan Grayson (Mr. “die quickly” himself) lost his seat this past election, so…
These are primarily politicians, though. Politicians benefit from this sort of polarized rhetoric, but most people don’t think they themselves benefit from it.
This goes to the question from the OP “why did it take this tragedy to figure that out?” There absolutely has been discussion on “tone” of rhetoric for quite some time. Dramatic tragedies like this bring out vehement discussion of contiguous disagreements that have been festering at lower levels.
Does anyone else remember that the Challenger disaster revived arguments not just over safety and quality assurance in the program, but over NASA budget and the shuttle concept itself? Neither the budget nor the overall shuttle program framework were directly to blame for the tragedy, but both were seen as relevant factors for discussion after the incident. To space buffs, it was salt rubbed on open wounds.
Right. I mean, Obama became a national political figure because of a speech about how there are no red states and blue states and in 2008 he campaigned on bipartisanship. It speaks to the same issue.
Correct, but it leaves out preexisting evidentiary proceedings. Such an incident of violence against a political figure has for a long time been a predicted possible outcome of increased political agitation. When a theory predicts a result from a specific stimulus, it is usually strengthened when that occurs. The theory may be modified (or discarded for the specific incident) if investigation reveals a different cause produced the effect, but pending such investigation the theory can with complete validity be assigned a higher probability than random chance.
You don’t think so? I think the Tea Partiers who turned out for rallies would beg to differ; to them, if polarization produces gridlock, so much the better for polarization; because gridlock = victory.
Either you’re posting from Bizarro-Earth or you just keep setting new standards for projection.
And a fair tactic, too. Remember which side the Eliminationism came from, and that the mainstream Pubs-in-office have done nothing or worse than nothing to put it down. You really want to try to suggest any equivalency between that and the W-hate from the W-Admin? You can’t do it.
On your first point I agree 100%… can we agree that it’s also a convenient spin for those who were so quick to point fingers?
Most people agree? I hope so but I’m not sure… I’d feel alot better if most of the slimy politicians and pundits admited they were wrong.