Violent rhetoric and the shooting in AZ

As AI's resident non-American (and the ONLY ONE but seriously folks) I've been following the news about Gifford and the shooting in Tuscon a few days ago and found myself swaying between a number of opinions. Of course, from the moment the news broke, the blame hammer started swinging, and hasn't stopped since. I've found that, regarding blame, there are two major opinions:

1. The violent rhetoric espoused by politicians and pundits is to blame, or is certainly partly culpable, for the act -- and its subsets; (a) the right is chiefly responsible, (b) the left is chiefly responsible, and (c) neither "side" is responsible, but rather the whole general atmosphere; and
2. Crazy is as crazy does, and there can be no external blame allocated for the actions of a politically mixed, clearly deranged individual -- no matter how intuitive it may seem.

Now, here are two links, for interest:

www.thedailyshow.com - for the next several hours, anyway. The first part of the video is what I'm talking about, wherein Jon gives a heartfelt and stunningly beautiful message about the shooting. He basically comes down on the second opinion. I'll summarise, for the people who didn't watch it and miss it before it is replaced with the new episode:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Stewart

I do think it's a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies, if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestoes of paranoid madmen and what passes for acceptable political and pundit speak. You know, it would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV.

---

He basically says that it would be nice if we could draw a neat causal line between violent political rhetoric and crazy people's acts of violence, but we can't -- however, we should examine our discourse more carefully, if only because the things that we and our politicians and our pundits are saying resemble these violent acts of insane hatred far too closely.

Then there's this link: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/c...llness_gambit/ - about "holding the Right responsible" for its vitriolic hyperbole, irrational fights and hateful punditry. It also raises a salient point about "playing the mental illness card":

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by link

Beyond just the concerns about letting the right off the hook with this “crazy” stuff is my concern that this “crazy” excuse stigmatizes and dehumanizes the mentally ill. After all, dismissing Loughner as “crazy” and ignoring the influence that environment has on a mentally ill person who snaps does carry with it, as Jill noted, the implication that mentally ill people are far more different from sane people than they actually are. ... In fact, it does this in record time.

---

So, I find myself somewhere hovering between 1(a), 1(c), and 2.

As much as it'd be awesome to blame the right, I think it's more a case of blaming your American political culture -- the Right definitely leads the way in violent rhetoric ("second amendment solution" being, i believe, a particularly ...repulsive slogan of Palin's), but the Left is not quite exculpated*. In response to the GOP's infamous gun-sights-over-Democratic-congresspeople, the Dems released a similar image, with targets over their Republican counterparts. I think this illustrates two relevant things: one, that the Republicans show everyone who's boss when it comes to violent sentiment, as the really vicious connotation of a gun sight shits all over the relative silliness/annoyance/Robin Hood merry men in tights/"bullseye!" connotation of the "target"; and two, that the Left is not only too tolerant of violent rhetoric from the Right when they should be saying "hang on, we are a democratic nation, and this is not how we do things", but guilty of vainly, pathetically, trying to join in, like a little brother with a suction-cup archery set on a hunting trip.

If the Right are the more guilty perpetrators, the Left should consider themselves at the very least enablers. But, really, the Left is no less guilty -- they're just worse at it.

I'll be frank: I really despise the American right wing. The Republicans are a shameful bunch of cheaters, liars and selfish fuckers in the back pocket of corporations, and will do anything to thwart the Democrats and "Liberalism"*, whatever the cost to Americans. But, as has been widely reported, this dude liked Karl Marx as much as Ayn Rand, and reportedly lent towards Socialism (but was mostly a random bunch of fucking insane, politically), so one can't simply wave a hand and blame everything on the conservatives. Americans have to seriously look at what kind of culture they live in, rather than getting up to blame one particular side, which will only cause more dissent, hatred, and, if you believe the rhetoric culture is partly to blame, more violence.


Thoughts? I hope this thread doesn't die right here. It's a discussion I really want to have.




*Of course the idea that there IS a mainstream Left, or mainstream Liberalism, in the States (much like Aus) is absurd, but, relatively to the extreme Right they are the Left wing party, so, you know what I mean.

Fuck fuck huge post. Whatever. Read it anyway.

"Right" and "Left" is a big joke, both parties are identical on all but a few fringe issues that are purposefully decisive of the populous (abortion, gay marriage, guns etc). Those issues are a blip on the radar compared to major things such as monetary policy, foreign relations, war, etc but the limited discourse on those topics is lost in the noise of "debate" of the fringe issues.
Look at the major issues:

Economy - both sides support excessive government spending, the continuation of central banking policies that obviously have some very major underlying issues that need addressed

War - Before Obama, it was squarely the right wings fault that we were sending young men overseas to die while muddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries. I haven't heard the left side calling for them to all come home recently, have you?

Health Care/Social Security - Both sides "agree that it's a problem" but continue to pass the buck of that unpopular decisions required to fix it onto the next Congress.

Foreign Relations - fuck everybody else, USA is #1. Both sides agree with that 100% and have no humility


Fringe issues and the violent rhetoric exist to hide the fact that there is only one party in the U.S. by turning citizens against each other and making them line up on the "left" or "right". If you don't pick a side you are considered a crazy weirdo (think Ross Perot or Ron Paul followers) instead of a viable alternative.
As people are beginning to figure this out, as I think they are, the rhetoric will only get more decisive and violence will only increase. Something like this Gifford event will happen from time to time, everyone will call a "time out" period to cool off but it will just start back up again. No one will call anyone else out on it in Washington because they are doing it themselves as well.

What is the solution? I have no idea. Things are so gone at this point in my opinion, we really just need to do a hard reset and have a civil war or collapse of our economy or something so we can get over this and start the healing and reformation process. Something drastic has to happen to systemically shock our current trends, I don't think chipping away at the problems by offering little band-aid solutions is going to help for much longer.

Also this shooter is straight up crazy. I get the feeling he leans right if anything at all because of his views on currency but I don't think Palin was even on this guys radar, that was just an interesting coincidence. No one (but Stewart of course/unfortunately) will simply chaulk it up to him being crazy though, it sells a lot more advertising slots on the news channels to debate if this is the fault of the right or left.


Oh. One other guy at least has said that this dude was simply a lunatic and we need to stop trying find who to blame - the father of the 9 year old girl that was killed. He also does not place blame on gun control laws. How about that.
http://radioviceonline.com/a-father-...cson-shooting/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

The shooter is straight up crazy. I get the feeling he leans right if anything at all because of his views on currency but I don't think Palin was even on this guys radar, that was just an interesting coincidence. No one (but Stewart of course/unfortunately) will simply chaulk it up to him being crazy though, it sells a lot more advertising slots on the news channels to debate if this is the fault of the right or left.


Oh. One other guy at least has said that this dude was simply a lunatic and we need to stop trying find who to blame - the father of the 9 year old girl that was killed. He also does not place blame on gun control laws. How about that.
http://radioviceonline.com/a-father-...cson-shooting/

---

Stewart mentioned that as well, remarking it was both as predictable as it was disappointing.

I don't really have much of an opinion on this, except to say that Western democracy in general is a big bait-and-switch operation that gets away with it because of the apathy of the population with it's cushy lifestyle. There are plenty of people who want change, but it's not a majority thing yet, and it won't be unless something catastrophic happens.

I think the worst thing is that the only reliable thing about politicians is how they'll make out everything around them to be about them or their opponents. This kind of narcisstic self-absorption is also such a big part of the Western psyche as well, which is why, when shit like this shooting happen, we pause for a moment to make ourselves look good (or get caught up in the pathos of the news, which is a whole other story) then either turn it into something to for us, or ignore it once it's purpose has been used. Can this viewpoint be blamed? I don't know. I find it a little reprehensible, but that's really only mild moral outrage compared to a system which, for all it's faults, still gets things done, even if it is only the cheapest, bare minimum.

blah, blah, blah, ramble tamble - the point I was going for is that pointing fingers at this point is fucking ridiculous. You can't blame any one thing over any other thing. They're all equally culpable, in my eyes. Whenever shit like this happens, everyone's first response is "What could we have done to prevent this? Won't someone please think of the children?" I don't think anything would have prevented it - determined people generally get shit done, regardless of what's in place to stop them. You can't fix crazy, either. The only thing that is actually within our control is the world that we live in, and I'm with Stewart on the fact that we shouldn't make our political opponents (be they social or religious or whatever) out to be enemies. Doing so only encourages the kind of exploitative system we have in place now, and causes crazy people to snap, like this guy did. Disagreement can be dealt with without outright hostility, or instilling views that wouldn't seem out of place in a civil war.

annnnnnnnnd lawmakers are quick to take away more freedoms from us while this is still fresh in our minds
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/ari...oro/index.html (the comments on here are scary, people are BEGGING for their right to free speech to be legislated against)

This is the 2nd time now that I have spoken out in support of the stupid Westboro church. I don't agree with their message but they have every right to say it even if others don't like it.

Sadly no one will oppose this bill for fear of being labeled a terrist. Hopefully it will get knocked down, eventually, as unconstitutional.

I'm sorry, but I find the idea of protesting funerals distasteful.

Is that something you really want to stand up for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

I'm sorry, but I find the idea of protesting funerals distasteful.

Is that something you really want to stand up for?

---

I find the idea of elected officials evoking violent undertones (and overtones) in their public speech distasteful. But they're allowed to say it if they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Niemöller

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

---

You can't wait to speak out against violations of Constitutional freedoms until your own are infringed upon. Just because it is inconvenient or unpopular doesn't mean it isn't a violation of that freedom that is given to all. Again, Westboro church is a bunch of assholes and I am completely against what they do... but I support their right to do it. If you don't like it, counter-protest. Or beat them up if you think that's a fair trade-off for an assault charge. (slightly off-topic - I read a while back that someone slashed all the tires on the cars of the Westboro members, and all of the tire shops in town refused to fix their cars)



vvvvv slippery slope etc

I, for one, just don't see the need for protesting funerals to be held as a constitutional right. Nobody is saying they can't protest, but we are saying they can't protest at a funeral. (And I think bringing out that particular poem is a little much, Scarf.) I'm not sure we need to protect the right to protest any way you want anywhere you want. You're not allowed to protest in my house without my permission, so why my daughter's funeral?

But let's talk about this in another thread, if anyone wants to continue the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

"Right" and "Left" is a big joke, both parties are identical on all but a few fringe issues that are purposefully decisive of the populous (abortion, gay marriage, guns etc). Those issues are a blip on the radar compared to major things such as monetary policy, foreign relations, war, etc but the limited discourse on those topics is lost in the noise of "debate" of the fringe issues.

---

Well, this is right and wrong. Right and Left (more accurately "Less Right", as I said) do exist, and the Left is far more interested in people's freedoms and more -- but not that much more -- willing to cooperate with other natures. But even if Right and Left are identical except for a few social issues, they're not identical. Gay marriage and abortion and public healthcare MATTER to people, and I don't think I agree with what you seem to be saying, which is that the whole debate is just a puppet theatre to distract us.

But even if both "sides" stood for mostly the same things, that's not the point here. The first question is: do you agree that the state of political rhetoric in the U.S. could have contributed to this guy's mindset -- and could contribute in the future? If so, do you find there's a difference between the two parties? The Democrats and the GOP have markedly different rhetorical techniques, I think that much is obvious, but how much difference does that make? And whether you believe that the vitriol contributed or not -- do you think it needs to change? How do we do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

Oh. One other guy at least has said that this dude was simply a lunatic and we need to stop trying find who to blame - the father of the 9 year old girl that was killed. He also does not place blame on gun control laws. How about that.
http://radioviceonline.com/a-father-...cson-shooting/

---

Well, that's good. I find the gun control debate to be irrelevant here. And while it's nice that the dad has the sang froid right now to say something so bipartisan and controlled, it doesn't mean he's necessarily right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

The first question is: do you agree that the state of political rhetoric in the U.S. could have contributed to this guy's mindset -- and could contribute in the future? If so, do you find there's a difference between the two parties? The Democrats and the GOP have markedly different rhetorical techniques, I think that much is obvious, but how much difference does that make? And whether you believe that the vitriol contributed or not -- do you think it needs to change? How do we do that?

---

It could have contributed, but looking at his youtube stuff there is no evidence of that at all, it apparently wasn't significant enough to be worth mentioning. He is just pure crazy.
In the future, absolutely it could contribute to acts such as this. The parties may use slightly different rhetoric but they aren't calling the other out on it because they are using it themselves - so both sides are equally to blame in my eyes. It absolutely needs to change, we need new people in Washington. More young people need to get involved in the process, and more people need to run for office, not just for Congress/Sentate, but local offices such as the mayor or even the neighborhood watch chairman. It will take a true grassroots swell (not the fake corporate-sponsored grassroots that plagued the last election cycle) to gain the momentum to positively change things non-violently. I doubt that is going to ever happen though because people are either lazy, or too busy working to put food on the table that they don't have the time to get involved. I'm guilty of that myself, I'll be the first to admit - in a perfect world I'd run for local office but I need to provide for my family and get through grad school instead of that, and likely will not have the time in the future to contribute in that manner either so complaining on the internet is about the best you'll get out of me. If someone could figure out a way for armchair people to positively contribute easily on their own time via the internet count me in.

OOH OVERLY DRAMATIC POSTS FROM YOUNG MALES IN THEIR 20'S ON THE INTERNET WHAT A SURPRISE.

The shooter in this incident was just nuts. He didn't take a cue from Sarah Palin. He had some weird delusional theories about the world that are completely separated from the current political discourse that has been taking place.

Here's his channel:

Classitup10's Channel - YouTube

He's talking about the government brainwashing us by using grammar and belief... or something.

I don't see how you can link what this guy did with the current tenor of political rhetoric.


Oh and it might surprise you, but mass shootings and acts of terrorism by Americans paranoid about government control have happened before. But never mind that; it's typical of people to only remember what's happened within the last year. Or maybe Sarah Palin was secretly communicating her seditious, violent messages to Timothy McVeigh back before the Oklahoma City Bombing.


I'm a little sickened by how everyone is jumping on this event to use it as a way to push their own ideological agendas. However, there is one thing for one to think about: violent and hateful rhetoric has become part of PUBLIC political discourse. Maybe in light of this we should consider toning down the hyperbole and seething anger a bit from pundits and prominent political figures on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Cool it on the supercilious and aggressive tone, sycld. You're not really disagreeing with anyone, here.

I'm not eager to blame this event or any other on the specifics of current political discourse. I think the association with Palin's gun sight map is coincidental and unfortunate. But I'm also not eager to entirely chalk it up to "he's crazay!" because, as the link above said, that has some troubling consequences, like the implication that crazy people exist apart and uninfluenced by society. So I daresay there is some middle ground.

I'm not blaming anyone or any party for the event OR the state of political discourse. I AM saying that I think political discourse is toxic and unsightly and hate-filled, and needs to change, and I AM saying that the GOP and its supporters are guiltier of aggression and vitriol, while the Democrats are obviously not without fault themselves. Do you disagree with any of the above?

It seems like none of us disagree with each other on any fundamental bit of this discussion. Hm. I was hoping for a little more "debate".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

I find the idea of elected officials evoking violent undertones (and overtones) in their public speech distasteful. But they're allowed to say it if they want.


You can't wait to speak out against violations of Constitutional freedoms until your own are infringed upon. Just because it is inconvenient or unpopular doesn't mean it isn't a violation of that freedom that is given to all. Again, Westboro church is a bunch of assholes and I am completely against what they do... but I support their right to do it. If you don't like it, counter-protest. Or beat them up if you think that's a fair trade-off for an assault charge. (slightly off-topic - I read a while back that someone slashed all the tires on the cars of the Westboro members, and all of the tire shops in town refused to fix their cars)



vvvvv slippery slope etc

---

I can though.

On a completely limited note, this legislation is only valid in Kansas, so it's not exactly a threat to the federal right to free expression. It also seems to be a last resort pulled, considering these guys have a history of protesting funerals to up their public image and draw attention to themselves.

While it's true that they are, in some twisted way, expressing their beliefs, at the same time, we have to examine the motivations behind it. If this isn't some 'pay attention to me!' stunt, then I'll eat my hat. If the whole thing is a setup to draw attention to who they are, doesn't this constitute advertising? And, if this straw man holds true, aren't there rules regulating advertisments in various fields?

Cigarette companies aren't allowed to advertise anymore. Porn cannot be advertised (except within porn). But, in a weird way, aren't these all ways that these companies and, through them, the individuals behind them to freely express their lifestyle and beliefs?

Can a correlation be drawn between free expression vs. advertising? Because if it can, this is one avenue to curtail this.

On top of this, isn't there a statute against hate speech?

Also, I agree with you on the elected officials and their evocation of violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

On a completely limited note, this legislation is only valid in Kansas, so it's not exactly a threat to the federal right to free expression.

---

The U.S. Constitution trumps any state laws. A state can try to make a law restricting free speech, but it can be overturned by higher courts. Kansas couldn't, for example, enforce a law where newspaper publishers were put into Kansas prison for truthfully writing about how the police chief's daughter does coke in the waffle house bathroom.

Atmoscheer, I realize you're trolling me but you obviously haven't read much on the subject. The idea of a gold standard is not to burn our paper dollars and start carrying around gold chunks and jewelers eye loupes, the idea is to have paper money like we have now, except it is actually backed by something, held in reserve in vaults, to make it tough for the money supply to be expanded by simply printing more money. Gold has been the traditional "something" through time, hence the call by some for a return to the gold standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Cool it on the supercilious and aggressive tone, sycld. You're not really disagreeing with anyone, here.

I'm not eager to blame this event or any other on the specifics of current political discourse. I think the association with Palin's gun sight map is coincidental and unfortunate. But I'm also not eager to entirely chalk it up to "he's crazay!" because, as the link above said, that has some troubling consequences, like the implication that crazy people exist apart and uninfluenced by society. So I daresay there is some middle ground.

I'm not blaming anyone or any party for the event OR the state of political discourse. I AM saying that I think political discourse is toxic and unsightly and hate-filled, and needs to change, and I AM saying that the GOP and its supporters are guiltier of aggression and vitriol, while the Democrats are obviously not without fault themselves. Do you disagree with any of the above?

It seems like none of us disagree with each other on any fundamental bit of this discussion. Hm. I was hoping for a little more "debate".

---

He obviously didn't come up with his crazy thoughts in a vacuum. That doesn't mean that Sarah Palin's poster or any other recent piece of propaganda or political statement had anything to do with this. That's all I'm saying.

Still yes there should be some self reflection here. If the Congresswoman had been shot prior to Palin's violent metaphor of a gun's targeting reticle, it would have been a pretty heinous image. And so now that she has been shot, is it appropriate to use such imagery with her? Is such imagery ever appropriate or called for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

Atmoscheer, I realize you're trolling me but you obviously haven't read much on the subject. The idea of a gold standard is not to burn our paper dollars and start carrying around gold chunks and jewelers eye loupes, the idea is to have paper money like we have now, except it is actually backed by something, held in reserve in vaults, to make it tough for the money supply to be expanded by simply printing more money. Gold has been the traditional "something" through time, hence the call by some for a return to the gold standard.

---

I think the dollar value should be a promissory for kibble and that the bearer of a note can trade it in for kibble at any bank.

This is a rare issue where sycld and I actually agree. The guy was a nutjob, plain and simple, and now everyone is using this one isolated incident to launch discussions that really have nothing to do with what actually happened. You can't blame a political party for the actions of a fringe violent extremist in the same way that you can't blame a religion for its fringe violent extremists.

People have the right to believe what they want to believe and express what they want to express. As people invoke their right to do so everyone else sees what those people express and hears what they believe. Every person is going to interpret that information a different way, then use this decoded information to do whatever they want to do. The only person to blame for this incident is the person who committed the crimes. You can blame this on the 'American Right' all you want to, but at the end of the day everyone is responsible for their own actions and coming to their own conclusions. You can no more blame Sarah Palin for this wacko murdering those people than you can blame Muhammad for 9/11 or Karl Marx for Stalin's atrocities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

This is a rare issue where sycld and I actually agree. The guy was a nutjob, plain and simple, and now everyone is using this one isolated incident to launch discussions that really have nothing to do with what actually happened. You can't blame a political party for the actions of a fringe violent extremist in the same way that you can't blame a religion for its fringe violent extremists.

People have the right to believe what they want to believe and express what they want to express. As people invoke their right to do so everyone else sees what those people express and hears what they believe. Every person is going to interpret that information a different way, then use this decoded information to do whatever they want to do. The only person to blame for this incident is the person who committed the crimes. You can blame this on the 'American Right' all you want to, but at the end of the day everyone is responsible for their own actions and coming to their own conclusions. You can no more blame Sarah Palin for this wacko murdering those people than you can blame Muhammad for 9/11 or Karl Marx for Stalin's atrocities.

---

I don't think we're actually fully in agreement here. No I don't directly blame the Republicans' violent rhetoric. However, how should they feel about using a poster using gun imagery to single this woman out as a political target, now that she has actually been shot? I hope they feel a prick of shame at least.`

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

I don't think we're actually fully in agreement here. No I don't directly blame the Republicans' violent rhetoric. However, how should they feel about using a poster using gun imagery to single this woman out as a political target, now that she has actually been shot? I hope they feel a prick of shame at least.`

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

You can't blame a political party for the actions of a fringe violent extremist in the same way that you can't blame a religion for its fringe violent extremists.

---

I find this blindingly naive.

If the religion or political party is making statements that DIRECTLY refer to violence, and actively telling people to go out and do these things, they can absolutely be blamed.

I don't know how that fits in this case, admittedly. But, let's say a guy pulls a gun on Harry Reid or even Obama and yells "This is for you, Sarah!", after which we find he was an avid conservative with a browsing history of nothing but GOP websites and a wall of posters lined with quotations from Palin et al encouraging "second amendment solutions"... would you still say what you're saying now?

Again, I'm not specifically referring to the incident with Gifford. This is a hypothetical. I'm challenging your notion that you can't blame a party for the behaviour of the fringe. You can think of another example with, for instance, a radical Muslim whose walls are lined with violent passages from the Qu'ran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

I find this blindingly naive.

If the religion or political party is making statements that DIRECTLY refer to violence, and actively telling people to go out and do these things, they can absolutely be blamed.

I don't know how that fits in this case, admittedly. But, let's say a guy pulls a gun on Harry Reid or even Obama and yells "This is for you, Sarah!", after which we find he was an avid conservative with a browsing history of nothing but GOP websites and a wall of posters lined with quotations from Palin et al encouraging "second amendment solutions"... would you still say what you're saying now?

Again, I'm not specifically referring to the incident with Gifford. This is a hypothetical. I'm challenging your notion that you can't blame a party for the behaviour of the fringe. You can think of another example with, for instance, a radical Muslim whose walls are lined with violent passages from the Qu'ran.

---

It is not naive, it is holding people responsible for their own actions. You're talking as if people don't have free will. I will admit that I am a bit understudied on the 'second amendment solutions' quote, and know little of the context in which it was used, but no matter what any politician says you can't blame them for things like this. Even in your scenario, Sarah Palin isn't telling people to go kill other people, and it isn't her fault that there are some people who not only think that's what she's saying but who are also crazy enough to go and do it just because some person on TV told them to. Politicians have a social responsibility to be reasonable, but at the same time every individual has a social responsibility to be rational.

What if, say, Obama or Harry Reid said that all guns needed to be outlawed and that there needed to be a 'solution' to those who promote 'second amendment solutions', then a person went out and stabbed the head of the NRA while screaming 'This is for you, Barack'? Would it then be the fault of the left that this random insane individual decided to take the message they heard, contort it, and try to make it a reality by any means necessary?

At the end of the day, there are always going to be insane people who get behind a movement or idea and take it too far to the extreme. There have been people like this throughout all of history on all sides of all political spectra. There is just no solution, and no one is to blame but the people who commit the atrocities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

What if, say, Obama or Harry Reid said that all guns needed to be outlawed and that there needed to be a 'solution' to those who promote 'second amendment solutions', then a person went out and stabbed the head of the NRA while screaming 'This is for you, Barack'? Would it then be the fault of the left that this random insane individual decided to take the message they heard, contort it, and try to make it a reality by any means necessary?

---

If people on the left encouraged "second amendment solutions", and told everyone to solve their problems with violence, then YES. Palin's catchcry is "don't retreat, reload"!

Re. the gun-sights map:

Quote:

---

Back in March 2010, Sarah Palin created a campaign push through her Facebook page against Democrats from conservative districts who had voted for the health care bill -- among them, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), who was shot today.

The page used a picture of a map of the United States, with crosshair targets located over 20 districts that were carried by the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008, and whose representatives voted for the health care bill. The picture did not use photos of the members themselves, but instead placed the crosshairs over their geographic districts and included a list of their names below.

The page was promoted through Palin's Twitter account with the slogans, "Take Back the 20!" and, "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"

---

Also, the "second amendment solutions" quote is actually not Palin's, so I apologise for getting that wrong. It was actually Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle, and the exact wording was "second amendment remedies" (which, if anything, sounds worse, to me).

If, in your example, Obama and Reid and Pelosi were using this kind of language, and there was a Tea Party equivalent for the Left, then yes, I think it would be utterly fair to apportion them some blame. As with what I said about the Qu'ran: if it's explicitly in the teachings, the philosophies, the holy documents, the written, spoken and defended statements of the leaders, then I definitely think that the construct of the party/group/religion deserves a share of the blame.

I'm not acting like people don't have free will. You're acting like people's decisions are made without external input of stimuli like religious and political conviction. It is naive to imagine a neat line dividing "crazy" and "sane" when it comes to violence for that reason.

Also, if anyone would like to debate the gold standard issue, please do so! In another thread. :) I'd be very happy to see more threads pop up in here, after all.

EDIT: I moved the existing posts on that topic into their own thread anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

If people on the left encouraged "second amendment solutions", and told everyone to solve their problems with violence, then YES. Palin's catchcry is "don't retreat, reload"!

Re. the gun-sights map:

Also, the "second amendment solutions" quote is actually not Palin's, so I apologise for getting that wrong. It was actually Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle, and the exact wording was "second amendment remedies" (which, if anything, sounds worse, to me).

If, in your example, Obama and Reid and Pelosi were using this kind of language, and there was a Tea Party equivalent for the Left, then yes, I think it would be utterly fair to apportion them some blame. As with what I said about the Qu'ran: if it's explicitly in the teachings, the philosophies, the holy documents, the written, spoken and defended statements of the leaders, then I definitely think that the construct of the party/group/religion deserves a share of the blame.

I'm not acting like people don't have free will. You're acting like people's decisions are made without external input of stimuli like religious and political conviction. It is naive to imagine a neat line dividing "crazy" and "sane" when it comes to violence for that reason.

---

People's decisions are affected by external stimuli, yes, but it is still up to the person how to process that stimuli and what actions to take. We can't stop religious and political groups from expressing their opinions (well, could, but shouldn't), and that wouldn't help even if we did. The problem isn't the institutions or what they say, it is how they are interpreted.

It is pretty clear (at least to me) that 'Don't Retreat, Reload' is just a play on words. I can't really speak on Sharron Angle, as I don't know the context of her statement, but Sarah Palin is not telling people to go out and shoot people. She is using wordplay in an attempt to make her message of resolve more memorable. Some people may have chosen to interpret it to mean go out and shoot people, but it isn't the spirit of the message. The same can be said about the wording of religious texts. When read out of context or translated in the right way you can make almost anything sound bad.

You can't just generalize and place sweeping blame due to misinterpretation and bad processing of stimuli unless your argument is that no religious or political stimuli should exist, since anything can be misinterpreted by a perverse enough mind. I don't think it is naive to say that there is a line between someone who hears a message and uses it to modify or bolster their opinions, voting, and activism and someone who hears that same message and decides it means they should go out and kill people.

See, here's where we disagree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

You can't just generalize and place sweeping blame due to misinterpretation and bad processing of stimuli unless your argument is that no religious or political stimuli should exist, since anything can be misinterpreted by a perverse enough mind.

---

Well, obviously I'm not saying there should be no political or religious stimuli. That is a world impossible to imagine. I agree that anything can be misinterpreted or twisted by a perverse enough mind -- that is an unfortunate truth of crazy. I'm saying that when statements don't require misinterpretation or twisting, they're problematic. Passages inciting violence in the Qu'ran (/Bible/whatever holy book) are foul and disgusting, and because they exist, religous leaders have a responsibility to combat and speak out against the actual violence committed from their compulsion. Statements directly encouraging violence against individuals in the world of politics, such as the ones made by Palin, Angle, Romney (though on a different issue), Limbaugh (actually pretty much everything he has to say), et al, are abhorrent, and when violence is committed that can be linked to them, they need to accept responsibility. "Don't retreat -- reload!" is more than a play of words, whether that's how Palin meant them or not. Gun-sights over oppositional politicians should not be accepted by the public, or the opposition, or their own party. When a member of a party publicly encourages violence, whether violence happens or not, the party has a responsibility to decry it publicly and vociferously.

(Just again, I want to stress that we are talking in hypotheticals, whenever I refer to "acts of violence".)

Also, I'm not sure what I think are the ramifications of this are. I'm not sure if I think that kind of speech should be against the law (from public officials, not Joe Nasty or Fred Professional Comedian), so I'm not making a case that it should. All I'm saying is that, when groups officially endorse statements directly encouraging violence, they are morally culpable for the people who act accordingly. They didn't pull the trigger, but they handed the gunman his weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Also, if anyone would like to debate the gold standard issue, please do so! In another thread. :) I'd be very happy to see more threads pop up in here, after all.

EDIT: I moved the existing posts on that topic into their own thread anyway.

---

You bastard.


Anyway, the one real message that people can take away that hopefully might make some good come about out of a tragic situation is: if this kid got the help he needed to treat his mental illness, this wouldn't have happened. Sure, accuse me of placing blame on a condition that no one has control over, but it's a simple fact that treating this guy would have prevented this shooting.

On the other hand, the more likely message about mental illness that people will take away from this is that all mentally ill people are a potential psychopathic murderers. So the stigma of mental illness deepens, making it less likely that people with mental illnesses receive treatment and more likely that people whose mental illnesses are well-controlled will be unfairly treated because of their condition, or at least live in fear of this.

Even though most people with mental illnesses wouldn't commit an act like this, it's been estimated that the productivity lost from people who aren't getting treatment for the most extreme sorts of mental illness (schizophrenia, extreme bipolarism, etc.) is worth the profits of a Fortune 10 company. That's not including productivity lost from the emotional strain placed upon others nor that lost from people with more moderate but untreated mental illness.

ok, so we're not going to get much further on any of the interesting philosophical issues bubbling out of this thread without abstracting a little further from the OP

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)

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.))

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?

Gwahir: To what extent ought there to be public/state intervention against memes? If you would say that memes influence the way people behave, and this is interrelated with the will in causing crimes and abuses, and are further willing to give the state a role in policing memes then, on these philosophical grounds alone and without reference to your personal values (except regarding freedom of speech of course), delineate the ethical problems with the Jacobins' attacks on the Girondins, the Bolsheviks' attack of the Mensheviks, or the actions of the Catholic church against those it regarded as heretics between 700-1500ad (I don't really expect you to have any trouble attacking those historical incidents, it's more an exercise to try to find internal inconsistency)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Anyway, the one real message that people can take away that hopefully might make some good come about out of a tragic situation is: if this kid got the help he needed to treat his mental illness, this wouldn't have happened. Sure, accuse me of placing blame on a condition that no one has control over, but it's a simple fact that treating this guy would have prevented this shooting.

On the other hand, the more likely message about mental illness that people will take away from this is that all mentally ill people are a potential psychopathic murderers. So the stigma of mental illness deepens, making it less likely that people with mental illnesses receive treatment and more likely that people whose mental illnesses are well-controlled will be unfairly treated because of their condition, or at least live in fear of this.

Even though most people with mental illnesses wouldn't commit an act like this, it's been estimated that the productivity lost from people who aren't getting treatment for the most extreme sorts of mental illness (schizophrenia, extreme bipolarism, etc.) is worth the profits of a Fortune 10 company. That's not including productivity lost from the emotional strain placed upon others nor that lost from people with more moderate but untreated mental illness.

---

the productivity thing comes from a distinctively puritan utilitarianism; colour me uninterested
as for the rest of the mental illness thing, thins is a natural result of the language used to refer to and cultural significance given to "mental illness"; now, I'm no Thomas Szasz, but the psychiatric institution's cultural and intellectual structure is in desperate need of overhaul, and, as for the public understanding of "mental illness", it verges on a category error.
You're right that, with treatment, he could have been ok, but it depends to some extent on who he was treated by. To imagine that "treatment" as a reified, objective thing would have made him better doesn't simply underestimate chance (as it would with a physical malady), it reflects a deeply mistaken view about the level to which the psychiatric profession offers objectivity and universality.
Unless, by treatment, you mean powerful sedatives and ounces of lithium. In which case sure, this wouldn't have happened.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Think

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.))

---

Well, I certainly can't sound intelligent after that, but, umm, kinda.

You're dead on about the weakness. Honestly I'm hopeless when it comes to the part of the discussion where we go "how do we police that?", "how do we legislate that?", and "how do we systematise that?"

Free speech is already limited. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to make violent threats against the President? Why is THAT law okay, but a law saying that no holder of public office may make or publicly endorse a threat against any other public official would not be okay? I'm almost inclined to suggest a law making it illegal for any holder of public office to make statements directly supporting violence against any citizen, but I can see that raising weird red-herring questions about things like abortion and the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Think

Gwahir: To what extent ought there to be public/state intervention against memes? If you would say that memes influence the way people behave, and this is interrelated with the will in causing crimes and abuses, and are further willing to give the state a role in policing memes then, on these philosophical grounds alone and without reference to your personal values (except regarding freedom of speech of course), delineate the ethical problems with the Jacobins' attacks on the Girondins, the Bolsheviks' attack of the Mensheviks, or the actions of the Catholic church against those it regarded as heretics between 700-1500ad (I don't really expect you to have any trouble attacking those historical incidents, it's more an exercise to try to find internal inconsistency)

---

While I'm considering accusing you of purposefully setting me up to look like a moron by not knowing enough about ANY of these things to respond, instead I'll look them all up and get back to this later.

As for the first question: simply put, I don't know. I'm very willing to talk it through, but I'm just not good at that part, so I try not be too opinionated about it. I'm very willing to say "X must take responsibility for Y", but I'm not willing to say what form that responsibility should take, or who must be the one to hand it out.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

For interest: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/846946-t...r-stoning-post

That's a direct and specific call to violence. I believe the authorities reacted appropriately.