Quote:
Originally Posted by scaeagles
Does anyone here believe that the antiwar movement was to blame for that? I think HE was to blame for that. Just as I think we are all responsible for our own actions.
|
Of course we're all responsible for our own actions. And of course there are generally way too many inputs into a specific persons behaviors for it to be said conclusively that any one input absolutely let to an output.
But to say that a general climate of ideas and rhetoric might increase incidences of specific behavior can be true without saying the individuals who do them are less responsible.
I have no idea why the Asan Akbar did what he did, I haven't paid enough attention (and I am not quick to say that any particular nutjob in the last 6 month was taking marching orders from Beck or O'Reilly). Plus, when spectacular news events of antisocial behavior happen we're all very fond of connecting dots with almost no information and in ways that just happen to support our already existing views of the world (as an example, even though the motiviations of the two kids at Columbine are pretty well known now, the popular thought on it is still seriously erroneous).
I have no problem at all with the idea that within elements of the anti-war movement the general tone of discourse led some people to greater levels of personal or property violence than they would have ever done left to their own devices. And just a few years ago this wasn't such a far-fetched idea among those on the right. See, for example, the release in 2006 of a fake documentary
Death of a President that presented in graphic detail the assassination of George Bush. To hear Bush's supporters at the time any attempt then made should result in the execution of the filmmakers while many of those on the right said it was just talk. Now we switch sides and everybody gets to call the other side hypocrites while presenting their own poop smells of daisies.
That said, for the most part I think the fringe-advocates of the anti-war movement were never really placed front and center in the overall national discourse. They certainly weren't hosting their own national TV and radio shows watched by millions of people.
And when Obama is being presented as someone actively seeking to euthanize the elderly, turn our country into a Islamic caliphate, told that he actively hates white people, that if his agenda is allowed to succeed it will mean not only the moral decay of our country but quite possibly the end of our nation, and when the echo chamber of these thoughts is large and pervasive within certain communities, I will not be surprised if one of them is inspired to commit atrocities with the expectation that at least their own little sub-community will embrace them for it as a hero.
Will that reduce ther personal responsibility of the person who does it? Not at all. Does that absolve the people who contributed to the echo chamber, especially if they were doing it cravenly and cynically in pursuit of ratings as an "entertainer"? Again, not at all (nor does that mean their responsibility is criminal).