The Arizona Shooting and American Political Discourse

[dsheinem]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/09/ari ... tml?hpt=T1

Has anyone else been following this closely? What a tragedy.

I find the discussion in the aftermath of the shooting infinitely fascinating, and think the fact that it has called attention to some of the combative rhetoric that marks political discourse in this country to be worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, and after watching his YouTube videos I don't really think that the shooter was motivated by inflammatory right-wing rhetoric. I think he was just a whack job. I do think, though, that the fact his actions have spawned the discussion over the past few days points to underlying concerns many of us feel about the tone of debate in American politics.

I'm very interested to see what, if anything, happens to political discourse in this country over the next few weeks. I am pessimistic that anything will change, really, but maybe I will be proven wrong. At the very least, maybe people like Palin will stop putting fucking crosshairs up on their campaign sites.

[Flake]

Well you know how I feel after our discussion last night.

The thing about free speech is that it is not free. There are costs associated with inflammatory statements thrown about recklessly. Although this man appears to have been deranged, it is not hard to imagine that the seething vitriol that the extreme far right spouted in the lead up to Novembers elections could have provided a ticking time bomb with a target.

What bothers me the most is that the Congresswoman was holding an event where she encouraged residents of her district to come and meet with her in public. I NEVER see my congressman do that - I also never get so much as a direct response to any emails I send his office. She was doing something that we (Liberal, Conservative, Centrist, Whatever) NEED our officials to be doing.

And she paid a hefty price. I really do hope she pulls through.

I am worried that this will send the message to our elected officials that they need to make the barriers between their constituents and themselves even higher.

[saturnfan]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/09/ari ... tml?hpt=T1

I'm very interested to see what, if anything, happens to political discourse in this country over the next few weeks. I am pessimistic that anything will change, really, but maybe I will be proven wrong. At the very least, maybe people like Palin will stop putting fucking crosshairs up on their campaign sites.

I don't want to derail the topic this early, but you are still upset about the crosshair thing? Jesus Christ, it is like I have to bury my face in embarrassment for you. Targeting locations to ramp up political involvement, using crosshairs, is hardly an inducement to use or promote violence. All it represents is that these specific locations are important.

[dsheinem]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/09/ari ... tml?hpt=T1

I'm very interested to see what, if anything, happens to political discourse in this country over the next few weeks. I am pessimistic that anything will change, really, but maybe I will be proven wrong. At the very least, maybe people like Palin will stop putting fucking crosshairs up on their campaign sites.

I don't want to derail the topic this early, but you are still upset about the crosshair thing? Jesus Christ, it is like I have to bury my face in embarrassment for you. Targeting locations to ramp up political involvement, using crosshairs, is hardly an inducement to use or promote violence. All it represents is that these specific locations are important.

There are other ways of doing this. Use a dart in a bullseye. Use a pair or binoculars. Use a magnifying glass.

If you look at the link, there was also an event a few days before the election called "Get on Target for Victory in November" where attendees could "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." You also have people like this out there shooting their mouth off: http://www.crowleypoliticalreport.com/2 ... -will.html

[fvgazi]

I don't want to derail the topic this early, but you are still upset about the crosshair thing? Jesus Christ, it is like I have to bury my face in embarrassment for you. Targeting locations to ramp up political involvement, using crosshairs, is hardly an inducement to use or promote violence. All it represents is that these specific locations are important.

To a deranged person it might mean something like that. People debate over everything. Someone who supports that campaign's ideal probably thinks it's harmless and innocent, people against it think it's an outrage, and insane people take things literally.

Being a politician you have to scrutinize every single word you say. Every word is worth far more than face value. Now, that doesn't mean every single person who looks at that image will go out and commit murder. It takes some level of reasoning to rationalize against murder. People who publicly shoot people don't have that reasoning.

So yeah, it does incite violence at some level. Same way violent video games incite violence at some level (yes, they truly do make people more violent, even if it doesn't affect you to that level), does that mean the public should censor everything for a small percentage of people who can't handle themselves?

[Flake]

So yeah, it does incite violence at some level. Same way violent video games incite violence at some level (yes, they truly do make people more violent, even if it doesn't affect you to that level), does that mean the public should censor everything for a small percentage of people who can't handle themselves?

That is a non sequitur.

Video games are an entertainment that you make a choice about. For example: Violent video games really do bother me. Hence my love of goofy and cartoony titles. It's a choice I can make.

Part of your duty as a citizen is to pay attention to the public sphere to be informed when it comes time to vote. You cannot say 'okay, I want the facts and only the facts, do not give me your partisan and seething vitriol' and have your wish answered. Over the past decade and a half, the message from both sides of the political spectrum has become more and more polarizing. Less emphasis is on imparting information. Instead, ideology is the goal: Veritable cults of personality shrouded under the guise of political or civil movements.

It is not that politicians should be censored - it's that they should have enough damn sense to avoid saying such horrible things for the very reason that this kind of thing CAN happen.

[fvgazi]

It is not that politicians should be censored - it's that they should have enough damn sense to avoid saying such horrible things for the very reason that this kind of thing CAN happen.

I think that statement goes for everyone, not just politicians.

[Flake]

I think that statement goes for everyone, not just politicians.

That goes without saying. You and I however enjoy influence dwarfed by several orders of magnitude compared to that an elected official has.

Bittersweet piece of trivia: The nine year old girl that died was born on September 11, 2001.

[lisalover1]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/09/ari ... tml?hpt=T1

I'm very interested to see what, if anything, happens to political discourse in this country over the next few weeks. I am pessimistic that anything will change, really, but maybe I will be proven wrong. At the very least, maybe people like Palin will stop putting fucking crosshairs up on their campaign sites.

I don't want to derail the topic this early, but you are still upset about the crosshair thing? Jesus Christ, it is like I have to bury my face in embarrassment for you. Targeting locations to ramp up political involvement, using crosshairs, is hardly an inducement to use or promote violence. All it represents is that these specific locations are important.

There are other ways of doing this. Use a dart in a bullseye.

Because putting a dart in someone's face is MUCH less violent than putting them in crosshairs.

[dsheinem]

There are other ways of doing this. Use a dart in a bullseye.

Because putting a dart in someone's face is MUCH less violent than putting them in crosshairs.

I didn't say in their face, I said in a bullseye. Besides, a dart has a clear "gaming" connotation that is not usually associated with crosshairs.