Gabrielle Giffords shooting reignites row over rightwing rhetoric in US

Is there really going to be a row over rhetoric in the senate or media? I don't think so as it is really an unwinnable argument. Will political capital be made in the PR-led Senate? Yes.

Originally posted by The Revenant

Originally posted by 11PB11
reply to post by The Revenant

 

I mean, you begin by talking about how "we" all need to stop this type of language etc...at least the right wing (as though these exact comments aren't made by the left). You make ad hom remarks and use language that could cause someone to become violent only to attempt to end as though this is one sided.

You can easily tell which side someone is on when they only think one party is guilty of something.

People are responsible for their actions not other peoples words. Your liberalism is obvious by your one sided argument. I could like several sites that have Obama and other dems saying just as "violence provocative" stuff as you claim was said. It's sad when people use others as their reason for insanity.... where's the personal responsibility?

You assume too much. ATS recently has been a hive of right-wing hate speech and fear mongering. Certainly, left wing people, liberals, (you might want to click on one of threads in my sig to understand what you're talking about) and other progressively minded people will respond to right-wing trolling and baiting. Often with no decorum. But does this mean that they are the source of the problem? NO.

The right-wing sponsoring and provocation of unstable individuals needs to stop - NOW.

The Revenant.

To be honest I'm amazed that so many on here have ONCE AGAIN fallen for the left wing/right wing pantomime, which is a lie presented to the sovreign citizens as fact. It's hard for me to believe that so many still believe in that absolute rubbish.

The problem isn't the non-existant right wing/left wing issue, the problem is that violent rhetoric has increased exponentially, from those in government and elsewhere. The responses to Wikileaks is another disgraceful example of this - and it came from politicians across the fictitious spectrum. It is also prevalent in society more generally, including here on ATS. I've challenged it many times on these threads, in all sorts of contexts

Violent rhetoric is a poison, violence as the knee-jerk solution is a problem and very, very dangerous. Words have consequences.

There's a lot more I could say about the violent acts carried out by the government and its agencies too. That's for another thread, perhaps, but the two are intrinsically linked.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Violent rhetoric is a poison, violence as the knee-jerk solution is a problem and very, very dangerous. Words have consequences.

Yet, nobody cried out against it last year when it was coming from the left and from Obama himself (as I documented earlier). They still aren't, and the fingers are only pointing one way.

Also, this shooting has been used as the springboard for an attack against right wing rhetoric, yet there is no established connection whatsoever between political rhetoric and the shooting. The shooter posted here and much of his material had nothing to do with political rhetoric. Furthermore, such "violent rhetoric" has been present and ubiquitous for years now, millions have been subjected to it and no particular tragedy of this magnitude has occurred because of it. Such political attacks are unwarranted at this point.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Please point out exactly where "my politicians" have "suggested killing people in their speeches".

OPENING DISCLAIMER: I am responding to this post which was directed at another poster with a post I have contributed in several other threads (100% recycled) because it is germane. DO I think Palin is directly responsible for the Arizona massacre, NO.

HOWEVER I DO THINK that violence infused metaphors can be taken literally by the uneducated or unbalanced. For example, a child, feeble person or person not fluent in a specific language lacks the ability to distinguish sarcasm and metaphors. If I told a child in a sarcastic tone "Oh that's nice" after they drew on the walls with crayons, they might think it was meant as encouragement or positive reinforcement. Additionally if I said "Screw you" to a person not fluent in English, they might misconstrue that as an offer of sex. Same for an imbalanced individual who already hears "voices" in their head.

COPIED POST:
=================================================================

Sarah Palin Sticks to Her Guns, and Gun Imagery, in Message to Supporters

"The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons -- your Big Guns -- to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win," Palin wrote. In the headline of her update, she mockingly predicted that the message would be "subject to new politically correct language police censorship."

SOURCE
====================================================================

As the Congresswoman said, "Actions have consequences" and they are not always intentional. So inasmuch as the fever pitched rhetoric may not have contributed to this specific act of senseless violence, why go there?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
But someone did call for someone to be shot.

Sharon Angle didn't call for anyone to be shot. What she did was fail to understand the partisan zeal and deceit of the mainstream media.

Here's another Angle quote.

“I can’t believe people are even asking that,” Angle said in the brief interview. “I’m very much a proponent of the Second Amendment and the Constitution. But what we have to focus on here is a movement, a movement that’s about retiring Harry Reid by voting him out of office.”

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

"nobody cried out against it last year"

I don't know what you are referring to, I certainly spoke out against it, even before Obama, when Bush was using the most ridiculous rhetoric regarding Al Qaeda, and later Iraq. I found it disgusting and I said so then too.

I've seen many people speak out about the violent rhetoric against Wikileaks, and this has also been in the MSM. Perhaps what you mean is that it is only now being discussed in the MSM? If so, of course, there is an agenda. But given that the R/L divide is a FICTION, you are simply buying into their fiction with your own L/R rhetoric.

The violent rhetoric is NOT political issue, it's much more than that, although the MSM is turning it into one - for the purposes of hiding the real significance of it, and also to keep the people fighting amongst themselves. If you want to help their cause by doing the fighting they want you to do, you are free to do so, but at least be aware of whose agenda you are really supporting by doing so.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Sarah Palin is showing her true, nasty colors....lack of sensitivity, lack of subtlety, lack of intelligence, verging on demented and violent nature. In fact, she is emerging as the symbol of everything that's wrong about US, imo. I truly hope she is bringing about the end of her own, ridiculous political ambitions.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
‎"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." – Barack Obama

"...argue with them and get in their face“ - Barack Obama

It's quite pathetic of the U.S. media to exploit this tragedy to further an agenda against their perceived enemies (conservatives and the right wing). Given the quotes above it's irresponsible to levy a charge solely against right wing rhetoric.

What exactly do you expect of the US media - are you still under the impression that they are anything other than a propaganda machine for those who pull the strings? Come on!

Originally posted by kinda kurious
HOWEVER I DO THINK that violence infused metaphors can be taken literally by the uneducated or unbalanced. For example, a child, feeble person or person not fluent in a specific language lacks the ability to distinguish sarcasm and metaphors. If I told a child in a sarcastic tone "Oh that's nice" after they drew on the walls with crayons, they might think it was meant as encouragement or positive reinforcement. Additionally if I said "Screw you" to a person not fluent in English, they might misconstrue that as an offer of sex. Same for an imbalanced individual who already hears "voices" in their head.

Sorry, but words you admit are allegorical cannot be then construed to be literal. The poster claimed "our politicians" were suggesting killing people in their speeches. This is simply a hyper-inflated lie. And your later example of allegorical rhetoric fails to meet the standard of politicians 'suggesting killing people in their speeches'.

Additionally, I examined the shooter's posts here this morning. I cannot find a single one motivated by political rhetoric, nor any post dealing with politics in any way. This topic is premature and unfounded, apparently perpetuated by the rabid speech-suppressors on the left.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I don't know what you are referring to, I certainly spoke out against it, even before Obama, when Bush was using the most ridiculous rhetoric regarding Al Qaeda, and later Iraq. I found it disgusting and I said so then too.

So did I. I admit, I overgeneralized. Point made and accepted.

I've seen many people speak out about the violent rhetoric against Wikileaks, and this has also been in the MSM. Perhaps what you mean is that it is only now being discussed in the MSM? If so, of course, there is an agenda. But given that the R/L divide is a FICTION, you are simply buying into their fiction with your own L/R rhetoric.

I agree, though I have to stay in context of the OP, which operates within the left/right divide.

The violent rhetoric is NOT political issue, it's much more than that, although the MSM is turning it into one - for the purposes of hiding the real significance of it, and also to keep the people fighting amongst themselves. If you want to help their cause by doing the fighting they want you to do, you are free to do so, but at least be aware of whose agenda you are really supporting by doing so.

I am simply responding to a post in which I have an opinion to convey, same as you. I disagree though, the rhetoric is a political issue for quite a lot of people.

It was an inside job!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
One problem with trying tar Palin and the right with this brush: his friends described him as far leftwing, hardly Palin's targeted audience.

OOPS! Once again the truth is getting in their way.
This attempt to tar Sarah Palin will backfire on them.
The more facts that come up about this Leftwing Nut the more foolish the liberals look.

reply to post by The Revenant


Your post is filled with ignorance. The same can be said for both sides of the coin. I am not a lefty nor righty but to think you can come here and to assert that the other side is the only problem with the world shows nothing but arrogance. Both sides are wrong on so many levels and people should not be subject to a title of left-wing or right-wing.

Extremists from any side is wrong in itself!

Political Violence owned by the left: www.americanthinker.com...

You can run from history and if you've been educated in the USA you can hide too...

reply to post by The Revenant


Just so you know, here is a compilation of Obama violent political statements:

may be the worst offender.

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com...

Did Obama make Jared shoot the Congresswoman? He has been more violent in his political speech than Sarah Palin but neither politican nor the constitutional rights of the American people are responsible for the violance of a mad man.

reply to post by wcitizen


Well said



All the Rhetoric is way to confrontational. We try to teach our children about sharing and the benefits of cooperation, it would seem that message is a "do as I say, not as I do." one. I suppose its not strange that America is involved in two wars and we have a problem with violence.

Instead of playing into the hands of the idealogical rapists that are attempting to control our thought processes through propoganda aimed at dividing our society with a "LEFT" and a "RIGHT". Why don't we all pause for a moment, gather our thoughts, write down our beliefs from both camps and then attempt an understanding of the purpose of these aforementioned idealogical rapists?

reply to post by FlyersFan


The only thing I blame on the left is the speed and veracity with which they cast blame on the Tea Party and on Sarah Palin in particular. I have no dog in the fight personally, but I have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Immediately the Huff Po exploded into a feeding frenzy the second this news broke. I spend a lot of time perusing political tabloids on both sides of the spectrum, and it took a whole 2 and a half hours before RightNetwork, and the Blaze had anything to say on the matter at all. And when they finally did say something it was defensive. Now it's a free for all. No one has stopped to think whether it's even remotely relevant to the story in any respect.

Paul Krugman wrote and entire hit piece on the right before any facts were even known at all. If anyone needed any reason to write off Krugman entirely this would be a good one. No self respecting human being jumps the gun like that.

I hope all of these people wind up with egg on their face over this. They go on about the poison rhetoric in the same breath they used to condemn Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the shootings. Now that the narrative wasn't told their way the target is on gun rights...Yeah, who didn't see that coming. I refuse to believe that I am the only American who sees the absurdity of it all.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Weak sauce reply / dismissal.

I present a relevant case towards scquelching incendiary political rehetoric, unfortunately you are simply mired in your own bias and too blind to see. Posts he allegedly made on this site cannot be used as the sole motivator of his actions.

To dismiss the notion that divise violent vitriol serves no positive purpose in a modern society is quite absurd.