The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

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).

[scaeagles]

You're changing your baseline. Previously you said that using the words evil and nazi could inspire the violence. I point out where there elected Dem party leaders are doing just that and you say "well, they didn't do this".

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

How do you not see the difference between a direct suggestion to cause harm and someone calling protesters evil.

I was quoting GD in his suggestion that using such words incites violence. Of course there is a difference and I do not condone O'Reilly, just like I wrote earlier that I think the Baptist pastor in Phoenix is an idiot.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I was quoting GD in his suggestion that using such words incites violence.

Pelosi didn't call them Nazis, she said they carried Nazi symbols to a meeting, which they did, and I believe her point was that it is ludicrous for these people to be leveling charges of naziism during a discussion of national health care. Do you seriously think she didn't understand that the people with Nazi symbols were not themselves Nazis? She's not dumb, she didn't say "they're nazis".

So no, I do not consider what she said even in the same ballpark as O'Reilly calling a man "Dr. Death" and advocating vigilantism against him.

[Morrigoon]

Just playing devil's advocate here, because I actually agree (that carrying Nazi symbols to a debate on nat'l health care is stupid), but it's worth pointing out that the Nazis were ostensibly socialist. I can see how they'd make the connection, even though I think it's ludicrous.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Just playing devil's advocate here, because I actually agree (that carrying Nazi symbols to a debate on nat'l health care is stupid), but it's worth pointing out that the Nazis were ostensibly socialist. I can see how they'd make the connection, even though I think it's ludicrous.

They may have used the word "Socialism" (Well... "sozialismus" really) in their name, but it was - if you excuse the pun - in name only. They were a right-wing, pro capitalisim party.

[Betty]

Originally Posted by katiesue

I guess I was the only parent who got the email from the school about the Obama speech and thought - wow that's pretty cool. The President is going to address students about the importance of education. Pretty cool that with technology they can all view it at the same time.

I think it's pretty cool myself. I'm don't agree with the President about everything but I really don't see the harm in this.

As a side note, I hated Bush. I wouldn't have kept my kids out of class if he would have done the same thing. What would he have said about education? yay team! It's important. Be sure to pay attention. You'll go far with one. Be a Republican or you'll be a bad person and may die early?

Seriously, what is it that you think he might say that's so bad?

[Betty]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

Wow. Do they really say all that? Wow.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Betty

Wow. Do they really say all that? Wow.

Yes, and more.

[Alex]

I won't say that many people hold all of the ideas, or that they even form the mainstream of Republican/conservative thinking. But within a segment they are all arguments swirling around. But to be somewhat fair, when Bush was president you could find all kinds of crap about how Bush was actively working to dismantle our country (I could find plenty of examples laying out exactly who he'd go about canceling the 2008 presidential election so that he could remain in power forever). Generally I resist the notion that Bush and his administration was acting out of overt malignant desires (even if they had malignant results).

Glenn Beck, however, has skirted or crossed the line on these and many worse. And I will admit that I tend to assume that anybody who says they listen to him with anything less than smirking disdain may have been lobotomized in the past. But that is rude of me to make such judgments without checking for scars.