Thread: Violent rhetoric and the shooting in AZ

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I agree with you on that as well. They do have a level of social responsibility above that of most that they betrayed. The gun imagery was tasteless and out of line, but at the same time within their rights to express. They shouldn't feel good about what they did, but hindsight is 20/20. Had they known that this woman was going to be shot they would not have done it. I don't feel as though any outrage should be directed at them just because of the shooting. Outrage on the grounds of it being tasteless in the first place is one thing, but retroactive anger is illogical.

I disliked it because it was tasteless in the first place and injected a violent overtone to political discourse. That's still why I dislike it after the shooting.

Originally Posted by Think

Mr E. can call me out if he feels that I'm misrepresenting, but it seems to me that he is following the classical view of British Enlightenment thinkers (i.e. Locke, Paine, Hume); actions are chiefly within the domain of the will, whilst memes (hardly classical philosophical parlance, but a wonderfully appropriate neologism) ought to be almost entirely unpoliced (he seems to want to draw the line, quite sensibly, at actual incitement to violence, hence the rather forced attempt to render an overwhelming amount of memetic parlance as metaphorical in content; I'm not referring to the specific Sharron Angle quote, which does strike me as obviously metaphorical, albeit hyperbolic and in bad taste (the result of polemicists everywhere, I think everyone from Crossfire to Christopher Hitchens would have to take some responsibility for this feature of discourse) but the general tenor of the last post he made). Note, in this position, the divorce that tends to occur between opinion and reason (you can say whatever you like in the spirit of partisan hackery, Christine O'Donnell is a witch and Obama was born in Kenya, but if you're actually talking in the forum of reason about the memes propagated by the tea party, then they must be judged in the most extremely positive light possible, lest we dilute the principle of freedom of speech)

I don't think... well first of all I don't think you should nest so many parenthetical phrases together unless you're actively trying to achieve the fogginess of most post-modernist philosophical treatises. This isn't German, where recursion ad nauseum, that is to such as degree as to obfuscate, perhaps with the intention of clarifying, though failing at this goal, meaning, or make a show, albeit a supercilious one of sophistication, perhaps in an attempt to distinguish oneself as philosopher extradinaire as opposed to those seemingly incapable of such extreme feats of sentence complexity, with clause, or maybe just sometimes, though I'm not certain as I am not a native German speaker, perhaps one from Dusseldorf, which is the capital of North Rhine-Westphalia, a region in the Bundesrepublik, that would be "confederate republic" in English, of Germany, prepositional phrases, after clause after clause.

Understand? Does that make sense? Yeah it doesn't to me either.

Nor are such exhaustingly long and interminable complex sentences necessary. Writing isn't suppose to be a Chinese puzzle-box of parsing, as you've made it into, but should at all times cleanly and neatly express precisely what you intend with maximal concision.

Anyway, I'm surprised that you seem to not understand the general stance of Americans with regards to free speech. He and I both believe that reprehensible speech need not be viewed "in the most extremely positive light possible," but that it should not be policed. At the very least restrictions should be minimal. There are exceptions to this rule, as you mentioned direct, potentially serious threats of violence. I have to concede that sometimes it isn't clear if violence used in speech is metaphor or is a serious, direct threat to a person.

We rationalize this by believing that there must be open discussion and consideration of all ideas. It's symmetric application of the law with regards to all speech. Pardon the hyperbole of using the word "tyranny" here, but yes we think it will help ensure that there won't be a tyrannical suppression of ideas, either by government or any other large and powerful entity.

Gwahir, on the other hand, is taking the position of a sort of cultural determinism: acts of will are heavily influenced, if not determined, by the conceptual apparatus of a belief system and/or a culture (in fact, he may go so far as to question such a distinction between belief and act at all); therefore, there ought to be a system to call into account demagogues and memetic structures themselves (in some ways this is a predictable anglophone distinction between the USA and the later British territories: the USA was forged in the heat of British Empiricist thinking and is strongly puritan and nonconformist in culture; the remaining British territories are more influenced by cultural, religious and political pragmatism, the wishy-washyness of anglicanism is a perfect exemplar of this thinking; its strength is that opinion and reason are more strongly linked in the public forum, its weakness is in making principle bow to expediency (i.e. freedom of speech is a fine thing unless there's a problem with it; we oughtn't to censor the internet but...etc.etc.etc.))

ugh

So let's throw down the gauntlet: Mr. E, at what point ought the state to intervene against radicalised muslim clerics? Metaphorical language? Actual incitement to violence? Or not at all (i.e. only act against those who are/have perpetrating(ed) atrocities?

I'll answer this as well, since I am siding with my fellow American here.

As I said above, it's not always clear. Here is where Mr. E and I will probably part ways, as he is most likely in favor of a strong government policing presence: I think that usually the government should intervene only when such radicalized clerics provide active support to terrorist or other criminal activity.


EDIT: Whoops, I meant to give "federal republic" rather than "confederate republic" as the translation of "Bundesrepulik." I was listening to something on the radio about a slave revolt, so I guess I have the American Civil War on my mind...

Originally Posted by sycld

I don't think... well first of all I don't think you should nest so many parenthetical phrases together unless you're actively trying to achieve the fogginess of most post-modernist philosophical treatises. This isn't German, where recursion ad nauseum, that is to such as degree as to obfuscate, perhaps with the intention of clarifying, though failing at this goal, meaning, or make a show, albeit a supercilious one of sophistication, perhaps in an attempt to distinguish oneself as philosopher extradinaire as opposed to those seemingly incapable of such extreme feats of sentence complexity, with clause, or maybe just sometimes, though I'm not certain as I am not a native German speaker, perhaps one from Dusseldorf, which is the capital of North Rhine-Westphalia, a region in the Bundesrepublik, that would be "confederate republic" in English, of Germany, prepositional phrases, after clause after clause.

Understand? Does that make sense? Yeah it doesn't to me either.

Nor are such exhaustingly long and interminable complex sentences necessary. Writing isn't suppose to be a Chinese puzzle-box of parsing, as you've made it into, but should at all times cleanly and neatly express precisely what you intend with maximal concision.

lol I loved that first paragraph but point taken

Originally Posted by sycld

Anyway, I'm surprised that you seem to not understand the general stance of Americans with regards to free speech. He and I both believe that reprehensible speech need not be viewed "in the most extremely positive light possible," but that it should not be policed. At the very least restrictions should be minimal. There are exceptions to this rule, as you mentioned direct, potentially serious threats of violence. I have to concede that sometimes it isn't clear if violence used in speech is metaphor or is a serious, direct threat to a person.

oh i understand the american attitude to free speech alright; but citizens of other western democracies borrow your words without borrowing the full implications of the principle, if you see what I mean; if I just put it in standard terms, non-Americans would tend to say "yeah I agree" out of familiarity and the vague sense that it is a postive thing rather than actual ideological commitment.
Ok, so "in the most extremely positive light possible" is overkill; my point is that there are two distinct forums in US civilisation, the forum of opinion and mad punditry, and the forum of reason, and the latter is mostly there to justify the structural relativism of the former. Of course some democrats will respond with "Republicans might as well have pulled the trigger themselves" and republicans will joust back with "are you calling for restrictions on freedom of speech? this was a madman and we didn't mean it that way, obviously"; the punditry touches on the domain of reason for its justification, but it remains separate; and (my original point) if it comes to it, you'd probably rather reason away any connection between opinion and action than put any limits on what can be said. This has strengths, of course: I've already said it shows a strong cultural guarantee of particular principles, I would agree that it defends the culture against suppression of ideas (except by popular dislike); but it also has weaknesses: it leads to a cultural language dominated by relatively few universal principles or values (basically only those which are necessary for defence of the culture) and it leads to an opinion/reason gulf larger than in any other western democracy.

Originally Posted by sycld

I'll answer this as well, since I am siding with my fellow American here.

As I said above, it's not always clear. Here is where Mr. E and I will probably part ways, as he is most likely in favor of a strong government policing presence: I think that usually the government should intervene only when such radicalized clerics provide active support to terrorist or other criminal activity.

It is, however, philosophically coherent.

Originally Posted by Think

oh i understand the american attitude to free speech alright; but citizens of other western democracies borrow your words without borrowing the full implications of the principle, if you see what I mean; if I just put it in standard terms, non-Americans would tend to say "yeah I agree" out of familiarity and the vague sense that it is a postive thing rather than actual ideological commitment.

They broadly accept it... until it comes to unpleasantness that they don't want to have to deal with directly, so they just stuff that speech into a deep gulf and turn their backs towards it, pretending it never existed in the first place.

Ok, so "in the most extremely positive light possible" is overkill; my point is that there are two distinct forums in US civilisation, the forum of opinion and mad punditry, and the forum of reason, and the latter is mostly there to justify the structural relativism of the former.

I fail to see the distinction you're making here. First of all, you seem to think that the only way to show complete and utter disapproval of something is to completely suppress its expression. So whenever there's something being expressed that most of society detests, the answer is to attempt to start a campaign of book burning and thought policing?

Secondly, how would the typical restrictions on free speech in other democratic nations prevent "mad punditry" in most of the forms that exist in the US? Italy and Malta's only restriction on speech is that it can not "blaspheme," with Malta making special provisions for protecting Catholicism. Britain only bans speech which incites "racial hatred" or "religious hatred," and it's clear that this law is applied only selectively, as mulahs can say what they will about the West but that Dutch MP was banned on entering Britain for his albeit assinine opinion on what's to be done with the Dutch Muslim minority. Let's not forget that Thatcher imposed a ban on Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adam's voice from the late 80's to mid to late 90's. Of course the BBC found ways around this, such as using actors to read Gerry Adam's comments on the air.

Germany has some of the most extensive and spelled-out restrictions of speech. You can't insult the state or the president, deny the Holocaust, use the Swastika engage in hate speech, etc. However, again there isn't really anything here that would really bar much of the extreme punditry from happening.

As I said, most of these laws don't pertain to "civil discourse" or anything like it, as I feel you were implying. Rather they restrict speech on things the government does not "like" or does not want to deal with, and this is precisely what Americans want to prevent from happening.

I will add that "slander" and "libel" are illegal in the US with provisions exonerating the media. This is very similar to most slander and libel laws in most other Western democracies. There are also out-dated obscenity laws on the books that are never enforced anymore.

Of course some democrats will respond with "Republicans might as well have pulled the trigger themselves" and republicans will joust back with "are you calling for restrictions on freedom of speech? this was a madman and we didn't mean it that way, obviously"; the punditry touches on the domain of reason for its justification, but it remains separate; and (my original point) if it comes to it, you'd probably rather reason away any connection between opinion and action than put any limits on what can be said.

Well fine, but I don't think I'm merely "reasoning away" any connection between what was said and this shooting. I don't think they are connected. However, yes, your point is taken. But even many of those who believe there is a connection aren't advocating placing any new limits on free speech.

Not only that, but most or all states have laws against "incitement to violence." So this speech would be against the law if it led directly to inciting this attack.

This has strengths, of course: I've already said it shows a strong cultural guarantee of particular principles, I would agree that it defends the culture against suppression of ideas (except by popular dislike); but it also has weaknesses: it leads to a cultural language dominated by relatively few universal principles or values (basically only those which are necessary for defence of the culture) and it leads to an opinion/reason gulf larger than in any other western democracy.

Well, actually America's guarantees of free speech are intended to prevent suppression due to "popular dislike" as well.

And again, your objections are disconnected from reality insofar as they pertain to America's relatively liberal free speech laws vis-a-vis those of other Western nations. Other democracies have liberal enough free speech that your objections to America's free speech would apply to every pretty much every other democracy in the world.

Also, I don't understand the nature of this "opinion/reason" gulf you speak of. Just because I detest an idea, I must seek to destroy or suppress every expression of it, or there is this gulf between opinion and reason you speak of? And again, if true, it would exist in every other democracy to nearly the same extent as it does in the US. Like I said, free speech restrictions in other democracies mostly is restricted to extremely tiny domains, either in principle or in practice, and these domains typically cover whatever the government does not wish to deal with at the time or goes against some specific specially protected group.

Originally Posted by sycld

As I said above, it's not always clear. Here is where Mr. E and I will probably part ways, as he is most likely in favor of a strong government policing presence: I think that usually the government should intervene only when such radicalized clerics provide active support to terrorist or other criminal activity.

You'd actually be wrong on that one my friend. We cannot begin policing expression, violent or otherwise. It is too slippery a slope and contrary to the right of freedom of speech. It is not the job of the government to tell people what is and isn't okay to think and say. It is, however, the government's job to punish those who commit or aid criminal activity. Until the line is crossed from speech to action the government has no real place interfering. I think Sarah Palin (who I just want to say for the record I can't stand, in spite of me supporting her right to express herself) has just as much right to say whatever she wants to her followers as any random radical Muslim does, be it tasteless, violent, or otherwise, with only the logical exceptions of severe and/or specific threats.