It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jared Laughner influenced by violent suggestions in media?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
When I first heard about the "suggestions of violence" in media outlets and by the right I thought that was a somewhat ridiculous theory. The theory is that Jared Laughner heard violent suggestions in the media causing him to become violent. Considering Laughner was supposedly a moderate democrat that was tough to believe. Palin made some remark about "targeting" an opponent. But now Stefan Molyneux has raised a very good point in his YouTube video as follows:


He points out that in fact the media has littered audiences with not just metaphoric speak but actual suggestions of assassination: Julian Assange of Wikileaks has in fact been called out for assasination by a very large number of people recently, as detailed at this website:
www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com...

The whole metaphoric talk about "political targeting" is nothing at all compared to the very direct calls for killing Julian Assange in cold blood. Obviously talk like that is very disturbing in addition to being illegal (murder is illegal and wrong) and should simply never happen. So did those suggestions of murder play a role in Jared Laughner's killings?




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Very excellent topic. The only problem is, people are going to reply to you and say, "Just because one side did it, doesn't mean the other side can or should."

What?

Really?

So... what's good for the goose really isn't good for the gander?

Do as I say, not as I do?

Why would someone think it's ok for one person to say or do something, but if it is done or said by any other politcal leaning party, it's doomsday material?

It is hypocritical, it's manipulation, and it's dirty, but they go on denying, "We never said anything like that! You took it out of context!"

It has been argued already on many Loughner threads already, and you won't drive the point home no matter how hard you try.

I think Progressive Liberal is a catch phrase for deaf and blind sometimes.

^Just a little sarcasm, so I hope no PL's get their knickers in a twist.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Tell you what, it is ABSOLUTELY true that words caused this fruitcake to sytematically purchase the firearm, purchase the bullets, bring the gun to the site, conceal the weapon, load the weapon, put bullets into a 9 year olds body and all because this FREAK heard some words.

Yep, that explains it all.

Ooooooh, target rich environment, oooooooooh, enemies, ooooooohhhhh, target, oooooohhhhh, bloviation.

What the HELL is a matter with our country? Do you REALLY believe campaign rhetoric caused this.

NO OP, I AM ASKING YOU.

Do you think that this FREAK was not the only one responsible? If you say yes, you are giving this freak an EXCUSE and you are as bad as him. Sorry, you are excusing his actions. You are saying that others are responsible for murder.

By the way, you are SICK if you think so. Sounds like you could give him a not guilty verdict, which is INSANE.

Buh bye!

edit to add-I am REALLY trying not to chew your asses out. I AM TRYING. The next thing you are going to tell us is that other psychotics like Ted Kazinski and others do not deserve their sentences. You FREAKS scare me as much as the psychos do. Next thing you are going to tell me is you want to release Manson.

WOW.
edit on 20-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


If I may...

Saltheart, we've gone 'round and 'round on a few occasions... And, while I do see your point about Loughners personal responsibility for his own actions. I must also agree with the OP. I think that a blend of both of your opinions is probably the correct answer to the situation that arose on that tragic day in Arizona.

If I say that media has gotten into the habit of going "too far", I'll get jumped on by a pack of Constitutional "purists" who will scream "free speach" in my face until my eyes bleed and my ears ring. And, academically speaking, they'd be utterly correct in their position. But looking at things through the lens of sociology and psychology, and not Constitutional law... Well the media has gone too far in a way. The culture that has become our media is so addicted to extremes, violence, hyperbole, and shock value - that they simply do not provide a realistic representation of the world or humanity.

The news used to, once upon a time, be something like a balanced diet. These days? It's a fast food burger and a Red Bull. It's meant to wire us out, polarize our emotions, work us up, and get us MAD AS HELL! Why? Because when we are MAD AS HELL we watch! And when we watch, advertising revenue goes up.

In a perfect little world where the news was all sunshine and puppies, would Loughner have loaded a gun, gone into public, and shot a woman in the face? Would he have killed a child? None of us can honestly say. But I don't think it conscionable to discount that his state of mind might have been substantially aggravated by media.

I know that I, following this incident, made a commitment to toning down my rhetoric and vitriol. This proves that I have learned the lesson of personal responsibility you speak of... My personal responsibility to always be aware that my words, just like my actions, have potential consequences.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Yes, I think the air we breathe is responsible, let us get rid of that.
The school that taught him is responsible, let us get rid of that.
The family environment he was raised in was responsible, let us get rid of that.
The school bullying that exists was responsible, let us get rid of that.
The food he ate, was responsible.
The theories he was fed in school.
The music he listened to.
The friends he had.

Heff, over the last few weeks, I am actually beginning to have more respect for some on the other side of the fence, but you are beginning to believe the self fulfilling dogma that they are feeding us.

Sorry, no matter how many times that WUK pisses me off and calls me a terrorist or the thousands of other things to get my goat, it will not make me go out and kill someone. Only someone that is INSANE kills for no reason. Now of course you will have people attempt to use the rhetoric like MANSON used. Well they are attempting to start a war or something. Sorry, that will not happen spontaneously.

One thing is always forgotten that it took YEARS for the US people to make a decision, yes that was 235 years ago. Yes, you have riots and clashes and this and that but those are NOT the Tea Partiers. That is NOT the US. You know this as do I. Violence is NOT the tool of the individualists. Those that are telling the government to step back are the ones that supply this government and the world with their labor. Now the government is telling them to shut up and sit down?


As I have said before and I will say again, when the rhetoric stops, that is when you better pay attention.

You know as well as I do, that this Tea Party is truly an awakening of the slumbering giant. The Americans that has never really paid attention before. Funny how Reid so idiotacally stated that once the economy picks up, that they will all go back to sleep and allow the government to do anything they want.

WHAT A MORON!

By the way, me and others like me got sidetracked by the downturn. I will NEVER go back to before. I never paid attention to politics before two years ago, when the construction industry was DESTROYED due to the GOVERNMENT interference in the market.

NEVER AGAIN as they say.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Yes, I think the air we breathe is responsible, let us get rid of that.


C'mon now Saltheart... We both know better than this. Going to irrational extremes serves no purpose.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

The school that taught him is responsible, let us get rid of that.
The family environment he was raised in was responsible, let us get rid of that.
The school bullying that exists was responsible, let us get rid of that.
The food he ate, was responsible.
The theories he was fed in school.
The music he listened to.
The friends he had.


From a mental health perspective, yes, all of these things could be factors in the process of putting delusions into a susceptible mind. It is well documented that most, if not all of the above, have served as trigger mechanisms for divergent people to do anything from committing suicide all the way up to serial killing.

I am not suggesting that these things all can create mental illness (Though at least two of the above, family environment and bullying specifically are considered pretty good candidates for causing it.) but they all can contribute to it greatly.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Heff, over the last few weeks, I am actually beginning to have more respect for some on the other side of the fence, but you are beginning to believe the self fulfilling dogma that they are feeding us.


I don't want to misrepresent my position Saltheart... I am not saying that discourse or opposition is a bad thing at all. These are healthy and necessary for a democracy. I am personally addressing the level of the rhetoric and the tone. I don't need to scream "I THINK YOU ARE A LIAR AND I HOPE YOU BURN!!!!", in an attempt to get attention and "atta boys" from the peanut gallery. I can simply say "It seems to me you are being dishonest..." and send the same message without the divisiveness and vitriol.

To be honest, a few years ago I kind of admired the idea of the Jeffersonian style "gentleman statesmen", but thought that those days were far, far behind us. I always identified more with the James Carvells of the world. I could never understand how some politicians seem(ed) to be able to hold their tongues no matter what was said or done. They always comported themselves so elegantly. I thought them gifted with patience.

Now I see that they were not gifted with patience. They forced it upon themselves for the common good.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Those that are telling the government to step back are the ones that supply this government and the world with their labor. Now the government is telling them to shut up and sit down?


I would not ask or have anyone "shut up". But it would be very nice to have a civil discussion in this nation, and not an adrenaline charged shouting match. Little, if anything, constructive is ever accomplished in anger.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

As I have said before and I will say again, when the rhetoric stops, that is when you better pay attention.


Then let's keep the rhetoric, and agree to tone down hyperbole. Not ever single event that happens in the world has to be an OMG THE WORLD IS OVER MAN, IT'S OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! moment. I mean even the threads on ATS have fallen into this trend.

Seriously... when somebodies dog farts and it leads them to write an end of the world / 2012 thread.... maybe we're just pushing the hyped-up levels a bit high? No?


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
NEVER AGAIN as they say.


And I take no issue with your anger, or your right to it. You are entitled and have every right to express it. All I'm saying is that, while we are on the public stage, doing so, it might be in our best interests to realize that we have an audience... and that some of them may well be putting a lot more stock in our words than we are thinking about.

Saltheart, we both know that you ramp up the rhetoric when debating. I do too. I'm just saying that maybe we could all benefit from a slight tweak to our methods - in ways that do not diminish or take away from our message. Adjusting the volume sometimes will bring the music more clarity even if the sound isn't as loud as it was.

~Heff
edit on 1/20/11 by Hefficide because: syntax and addition



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
good eye for seeing the double standard. The media likes to incite violence all the time against third world countries and enemies of the state but then when it hits close to home they suddenly look down upon violence. If they really hated violence maybe they should work on ending the wars.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Okay, adding a third to the list, SG, BH and Heff, well I will add Janky too....just cuzz I like her.


By the way, I admit that I am a hothead. Always have been, always will be. Heck, some of the folks that use to work for me, when running my business a few years, back hated me. BUT, they always ask me when am I starting it again so they can apply.


Just because you do not like someone, does not mean that they cannot do good works..

edit on 20-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I think we have all forgotten how the US came to be
in the first place.

A violent uprising to political discourse
gave us our US Constitution and Declaration
of Independence.

Maybe we should read a lil bout Andrew Jackson.


One of Jackson's less celebrated duels, which occurred in 1803, was with John Sevier, then governor of Tennessee. On a Saturday morning while Jackson was addressing a crowd concerning his contributions to the state of Tennessee, Sevier sneered: "I know of no great service you have rendered the country except taking a trip with another man's wife." Jackson instantly jumped upon Sevier with a howl of rage, clubbing him with his walking stick. He then challenged Sevier to a duel, but when the two men met on the field of honor, they began screaming at each other before they had even been given their pistols. Jackson ran at his adversary, threatening to cane him once again, and Sevier drew his sword, all of which frightened Sevier's horse, which ran away with the pistols. Not a single shot was fired.

More serious was Jackson's duel with Charles Dickinson in 1806. Dickinson, who had a reputation as the best shot in Tennessee, had made disparaging remarks about Jackson's beloved Rachel. In the duel that followed, Dickinson fired first, and his bullet entered Jackson's chest just an inch above the heart. Jackson staggered as the blood began soaking through his clothes, but he managed to steady himself and took aim at Dickinson. Dickinson ran from the line of fire, but he was ordered back to his place, a mere 24 ft. from Jackson, according to the code of honor. Dickinson stood awaiting Jackson's bullet with his arms crossed over his chest; Jackson steadied himself, aimed slowly and deliberately, and shot his opponent in the groin. Dickinson died a slow and painful death, and Jackson carried his bullet for the rest of his life; it had lodged too close to Jackson's heart to be removed.


www.trivia-library.com...

For those foreigners on ATS, Andrew Jackson was one
of the US Presidents.

Would Andrew Jackson be considered guilty
of violent uprising to political discourse ???

What about Nixon - Vietnam
What about Reagan - Iran-Contra
What about Bush Sr - First Gulf War
What about Clinton - Waco
What about Bush Jr. - 9/11 and Afghan / Iraq invasions, Patriot Act (creation of DHS and waterboarding)
What about Obama - staying the course of Bush Jr. - drone strikes

who is more guilty of violence to political discourse?
Politicians or the populace ???



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


You were a little spry on some of those presidents, but I got your meaning.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
What the HELL is a matter with our country? Do you REALLY believe campaign rhetoric caused this.

NO OP, I AM ASKING YOU.

No I do not believe campaign rhetoric caused this, and I think my post pretty much made it clear I believe the campaign rhetoric DID NOT cause it. I said that if people in the media call for assasinations and then they happen, perhaps those media guys belong in prison with the killer.


Do you think that this FREAK was not the only one responsible? If you say yes, you are giving this freak an EXCUSE and you are as bad as him. Sorry, you are excusing his actions. You are saying that others are responsible for murder.

By the way, you are SICK if you think so. Sounds like you could give him a not guilty verdict, which is INSANE.

Your idea that responsibility is a pie to be split up somehow is a major fallacy. There is always plenty of blame to go around for a lot of things that go wrong. Lets say I'm on an assembly line with one other person and we are both tasked with finding faulty parts. A part goes past me and I missed it. It then goes past the second worker. So in your mind, I am 50% responsible and the other guy is 50% responsible. Wrong though. I am 100% responsible for my error and the other guy is also 100% resonsible for his error.

Is Jared Laughner 100% responsible for his actions? Yes. Are other people ALSO 100% responsible for his actions? Yes. His dad was responsible for abusing Jared. Media commentators are responsible for encouraging assassination attempts. Your idea that this somehow takes blame away from Laughner is not right. The fact of the matter is that Fox news made assasinations look like a great idea when the Wikipedia stories broke out. And you think if those assasinations then go on to happen what that the commentators should not be held responsible for THEIR actions?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
nobody can say what caused Jared Laughner to do what he did. of course people will look at his life and beliefs and speculate about what made him do it, but in reality nobody will know for sure.

some of the things mentioned in the o.p.'s youtube video were heard by many many people, yet other people with mental problems did not go out doing the same a jared.

i believe it was many things that caused him to do it, not just one thing that somebody said, but a sequence of things from childhood to the incident. his experience of life was unique, saying which one specific thing set him off is impossible.


edit on 20-1-2011 by lifeform11 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
He very well could have been influenced, however there isn't any real evidence of such an influence amongst his myriad of friends that FOX News has found.

But, that doesn't mean that this kind of violent rhetoric is acceptable or should be tolerated.

I made a video about what has been going on the last couple of years, and there does seem to be a lot of violence in one particular side of the political aisle.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Considering Laughner was supposedly a moderate democrat that was tough to believe.


Actually, he wasn't registered with a political party, and wrote in "Independent" on his voter card in 2006 and 2008. So, he wasn't a moderate Democrat, or a Democrat of any kind. In fact, there hasn't been any evidence that he was politically motivated at all. Or that politics even mattered to him.

Source


. So did those suggestions of murder play a role in Jared Laughner's killings?


At this time, I'd have to say no. Jared Laughner's reasons are unknown. So, the idea that he was politically motivated or motivated by violent rhetoric in the media is just conjecture. We don't even know if he watched TV or listened to the media.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Okay, adding a third to the list, SG, BH and Heff, well I will add Janky too....just cuzz I like her.


Hey! Whose list am I on, now? And what kind of list is it?
I like the company, though.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
We can play this game all day...

Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne cause teen suicides with their music

Video Games have caused teen violence and crime...

Rock N Roll have caused an upswing in teen pregnancies...

McDonald's made me fat...

Beer ads made me an alcoholic..

PlayBoy made me rape a woman...

Campaign rhetoric made me shoot a politician...

What about personal responsibilty?

Actually, if you listen to some of the stuff on the shortwave radio disguised as journalism...or listen to some of the christian broadcasting on shortwave radio...or look at some of the stuff on YouTube...or even look at some of the political cartoons and caricatures from US history...all are much more violent than anything you hear or see in the mainstream media today. Frankly, this guy was a fruitcake...that's it. And in his distorted world, he had a very disturbing outlook and put it into motion... the folks in Az were the unfortunate victims.

Blaming media for attempted assasinations is like blaming Budweiser for drunk drivers..or blaming Chevy or Ford for drunk drivers.... no cars= no drivers= no drunk drivers....that's stupid logic.

This is an open and sometimes free society...it comes with risk.. that's life... live it.

We could ban guns, but in Japan a couple of years ago...a guy killed 12 people with a steak knife...so let's ban steak knives. Use a baseball bat...ban BB bats.

It was a messed up situation with a messed up individual...stuff happens.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 


I don't think anyone is saying that a news story made Loughner kill anyone. But let me offer you a parable...

I walked into a bar that had a bouncer, a dress code, a pleasant staff, and everyone in the bar was smiling, laughing, and having a good time. So I walked in, ordered a beer, and struck up a conversation with the woman next to me....

VS

I walked into a bar and it was a madhouse! There was a mosh pit, filled with people just slamming the T-total Hell out of one another. There were people doing drugs in the hallway that led to the bathroom, and man oh man, there were two girls making out, naked, in one of the booths. Not a security guard in sight! It was anarchy. So I walked up to the bar, and ordered a beer when this guy bumped into me, so I decked him.

The above two stories? 99% accurate representations of experiences that I had in two separate local bars within a period of maybe 4-5 months. Nothing in my life had really changed between these two events. I was basically the exact same guy in pretty much the exact same mood, as I walked into the bar.

The difference was environment. One was structured and rational - so my reactionary behaviors and mind set were in tune with my environment.

The other was chaotic and my reactions were in tune with that environment as well.

The atmosphere we create does have an impact upon society in general. This is why there are things that we, as adults enjoy, but do NOT enjoy in front of our children or our neighbors.

Rhetorical debate is an awesome thing, but denying things along party lines and upon blind principal is not a wise way for us to proceed.

At least that's how I see it. It's not an apologist position, or a liberal position. It's just personal responsibility.

~Heff



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


People that kinda lean left that can have civil discussions without the barbs being thrown.

Sorry, I am forgetting about the new call for eliminating metaphors or sumthin.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Maybe he thought there was a knife fight going on, and he brought a gun, just like Obama suggested?

The biggest overlooked issue in this whole case is drugs.

Swept completely under the rug. Guy was a complete stoner, but no mention in the lame-stream media about this being a cause for his actions. I guess it doesn't fit their agenda?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join