Gabrielle Giffords Shot

[Atheist-Lite]

Very nice and neat, but I am talking about using the marks on the map by Sarah Palin and the rhetoric by Jesse. Is that acceptable?

The words of politicians may have aimed the bullets, given a target, but these murder simulators are what loaded the kooks mind with murderous thoughts. If it had been a criminal game he was following he'd have gone berserk in the shopping mall all the same and perhaps killed a lot more for not having a target? The modern gaming industry is producing a generation of emotional cripples and studies, if someone wants to dig them up, show empathy in the states is in decline.

[Coito ergo sum]

Very nice and neat, but I am talking about using the marks on the map by Sarah Palin and the rhetoric by Jesse. Is that acceptable?

Thank you.

That's not "right wing rhetoric," first of all. It's a metaphor for targeting states in an election campaign, and martial analogies and metaphors are as old as politics, and certainly not a feature of the right wing.

Unless...the Democratic Party is also engaged in "right wing" rhetoric:



What's "unacceptable" about this?


Or, this:








Gasp! How "unacceptable!!!!"

It's easy to overreact to rather tame metaphors in the face of unspeakable tragedy committed by a giant tool-bag who had delusions of grandeur, elements of misogyny, psychotic delusions, some paranoia, no friends other than those that mocked him and thought he was on drugs or mentally handicapped in an online gaming community, who couldn't hold down a minimum wage job, and who was kicked out of community college for scaring the fuck out of his fellow students....

.

[maiforpeace]

Very nice and neat, but I am talking about using the marks on the map by Sarah Palin and the rhetoric by Jesse. Is that acceptable?

Good try Rob. I predict a response to this effect:

When people use metaphors and violent rhetoric that's not dangerous. When you criticize it, that's dangerous.

EDIT:

Oops, looks like I was wrong...we get a repeat of the same argument already made over and over.

[Rob]

Red Herring

Stop with that. I asked you a direct question, if you found the imagery used by Sarah Palin and the word choice of Jesse as acceptable, not if we agree or disagree with the image you posted. I swear, politics makes people act like creationists.

[Coito ergo sum]

Very nice and neat, but I am talking about using the marks on the map by Sarah Palin and the rhetoric by Jesse. Is that acceptable?

Good try Rob. I predict a response to this effect:

When people use metaphors and violent rhetoric that's not dangerous. When you criticize it, that's dangerous.

I don't find either one dangerous.

EDIT:

Oops, looks like I was wrong...we get a repeat of the same argument already made over and over.

I had the argument with you. And, Rob and I are talking about an entirely different issue. If you care to participate, fine. If not, don't.

The question posed by Rob is a good one - does one find "right wing rhetoric" "acceptable." It forces us to examine just what we mean by the things we say and the words we use. Is "right wing rhetoric" acceptable? What is "right wing rhetoric"? What do you mean by "acceptable?" And, are "target maps" actually "right wing rhetoric" are are they just "metaphors" used by the right wing and the left wing, apparently...

The reason I reposted the Democrat target map (and added two more ditties that I hadn't posted before),is that it goes to show quite clearly that the fucking stupid target maps are not "right wing" rhetoric. Surely you can see that?

[Rob]

I clarified my question in my subsequent post, which you seem to be ignoring on purpose. I know you are an intelligent man, CES. As such I don't believe you should keep up in the manner you are, acting as if I had not clarified my question.

Very nice and neat, but I am talking about using the marks on the map by Sarah Palin and the rhetoric by Jesse. Is that acceptable?

By acceptable I am asking if you think there is no potential harm thus making it acceptable to use.

[Coito ergo sum]

Red Herring

Stop with that. I asked you a direct question, if you found the imagery used by Sarah Palin and the word choice of Jesse as acceptable, not if we agree or disagree with the image you posted. I swear, politics makes people act like creationists.

Then you need to stop changing what you're asking about.

For the record - your first question was whether or not "right wing rhetoric" was acceptable. I said, most assuredly, that it was.

I asked you to clarify for me what you meant by "acceptable" and you ignored that question, of course. Because like many around here, apparently the responsibility to answer questions only flows one way.

You then changed what you were asking about and said "I'm talking about the Palin map" - and the Jesse Kelly rhetoric. I pointed out - not a red herring - that such rhetoric was not "right wing" rhetoric. And, that's important to this discussion. The fact that the same shit is done by the "left wing" in this country is absolutely on point. So, showed you that the same kinds of metaphors are used by the left and the right.

Of course I don't find them "unacceptable."

Do you find them unacceptable? If so, what does that mean? Should it be illegal to "target" a Congressional district? What does it mean for something to be "unacceptable" in this instance?

[Atheist-Lite]

Would this shooting have been given the indepth autopsy it as here if it had occured in a run down drug infested district between people of no means?

[maiforpeace]

Would this shooting have been given the indepth autopsy it as here if it had occured in a run down drug infested district between people of no means?

Obviously not...how is that a comparison though?

[Coito ergo sum]

I clarified my question in my subsequent post, which you seem to be ignoring on purpose.

Oh for fuck's sake. I've answered every one of your questions with specificity. I'll fucking say it for the third time - implicitly then explicitly, now fucking balls out and hitting home: No - it's not fucking "unacceptable" - any more than saying that "Let's get out there and fight fight fight! Defeat our opponents! And, take back this country!" Is "unacceptable" in political discourse.

I know you are an intelligent man, CES. As such I don't believe you should keep up in the manner you are, acting as if I had not clarified my question.

I'd appreciate a little give, with the take here Rob. Do you think "target maps" are "right wing rhetoric?" Can you please stop ignoring that question?

Very nice and neat, but I am talking about using the marks on the map by Sarah Palin and the rhetoric by Jesse. Is that acceptable?

By acceptable I am asking if you think there is no potential harm thus making it acceptable to use.

The only words "acceptable to use" are those that have "no potential harm?" I reject that definition on its face. If the only words we could use would be those which can have no potential harm, then we'd be mimes.

What words don't have any potential harm? If someone gives a speech railing against excessive illegal immigration, there is potential harm - people riot over that stuff. Is that "acceptable" - damn straight it is. If someone marches down the street in opposition to the G-12 Summit, is there potential harm? Hell yeah - but is their speech "acceptable" - damn straight it is

And, can someone use "target" symbols to "target" a district on a map that they want to "conquer" in an upcoming "political campaign?" Hell yeah - that's acceptable. If someone goes bat shit crazy because of it (and there has yet to be a single shred of evidence that anyone in the world HAS taken violent action because of such metaphors), then the responsibility lies with the violent actor.

FFS - it's a "campaign!" That in and of itself is a martial metaphor! The word originated in the 1600s to mean "operation of an army in the field." When democracies held political elections - the "battle" for the political power adopted the martial metaphor "campaign," too, because what used to get settled on the field of battle is now in the ballot box.

Wow - what a milquetoast political environment we would have to be in if all words had to be chosen in such a way that no "potential harm" could be envisaged. We can't call it "campaign" because I could see some Jared Lee Loughler going bat shit and thinking it was a real campaign.

[Coito ergo sum]

Would this shooting have been given the indepth autopsy it as here if it had occured in a run down drug infested district between people of no means?

If that was the scenario, then it would not have been a Congresswoman and a Chief Judge of a United States District Court, both of whom make in excess of $172,000, plus gold-plated benefits. By definition, such people cannot be of "no means."

So, if the question is - if Jared Lee Loughler shot 20 people at one time in a drug infested neighborhood, killing 5 of them, it would certainly have made the national news, but it would have been a relatively short lived story. But, I suspect that the same is true in any other place around the world - prominent figures get more coverage because more people are interested in them. I don't think there is anything really horrid about that - no offense, but I'd be more interested in a Congresswoman's murder than in the murder of John Q. Public.

[Atheist-Lite]

Would this shooting have been given the indepth autopsy it as here if it had occured in a run down drug infested district between people of no means?

If that was the scenario, then it would not have been a Congresswoman and a Chief Judge of a United States District Court, both of whom make in excess of $172,000, plus gold-plated benefits. By definition, such people cannot be of "no means."

So, if the question is - if Jared Lee Loughler shot 20 people at one time in a drug infested neighborhood, killing 5 of them, it would certainly have made the national news, but it would have been a relatively short lived story. But, I suspect that the same is true in any other place around the world - prominent figures get more coverage because more people are interested in them. I don't think there is anything really horrid about that - no offense, but I'd be more interested in a Congresswoman's murder than in the murder of John Q. Public.

In a spirit-level society people like this kook would not seek 'artificial prestige' by shooting prominent figures. It seems only a matter of time before the US becomes like South America and the wealthy will need gated communities with black-water private security. Then all the kidnappings of wealthy socialites and heads appearing everywhere like on the border with Mexico?

[Coito ergo sum]

Would this shooting have been given the indepth autopsy it as here if it had occured in a run down drug infested district between people of no means?

If that was the scenario, then it would not have been a Congresswoman and a Chief Judge of a United States District Court, both of whom make in excess of $172,000, plus gold-plated benefits. By definition, such people cannot be of "no means."

So, if the question is - if Jared Lee Loughler shot 20 people at one time in a drug infested neighborhood, killing 5 of them, it would certainly have made the national news, but it would have been a relatively short lived story. But, I suspect that the same is true in any other place around the world - prominent figures get more coverage because more people are interested in them. I don't think there is anything really horrid about that - no offense, but I'd be more interested in a Congresswoman's murder than in the murder of John Q. Public.

In a spirit-level society people like this kook would not seek 'artificial prestige' by shooting prominent figures. It seems only a matter of time before the US becomes like South America and the wealthy will need gated communities with black-water private security. Then all the kidnappings of wealthy socialites and heads appearing everywhere like on the border with Mexico?

Hmmm.... what spirit-level societies are good models to follow so as to avoid shootings of prominent figures?

[Atheist-Lite]

Would this shooting have been given the indepth autopsy it as here if it had occured in a run down drug infested district between people of no means?

If that was the scenario, then it would not have been a Congresswoman and a Chief Judge of a United States District Court, both of whom make in excess of $172,000, plus gold-plated benefits. By definition, such people cannot be of "no means."

So, if the question is - if Jared Lee Loughler shot 20 people at one time in a drug infested neighborhood, killing 5 of them, it would certainly have made the national news, but it would have been a relatively short lived story. But, I suspect that the same is true in any other place around the world - prominent figures get more coverage because more people are interested in them. I don't think there is anything really horrid about that - no offense, but I'd be more interested in a Congresswoman's murder than in the murder of John Q. Public.

In a spirit-level society people like this kook would not seek 'artificial prestige' by shooting prominent figures. It seems only a matter of time before the US becomes like South America and the wealthy will need gated communities with black-water private security. Then all the kidnappings of wealthy socialites and heads appearing everywhere like on the border with Mexico?

Hmmm.... what spirit-level societies are good models to follow so as to avoid shootings of prominent figures?

What happens in America once a fortnight doesn't happen everywhere on that scale. Guns also do something about emotional space I figure. If you can get shot by saying the wrong thing everyone puts on a false smile and shows bad faith(from a safe distance or behind each others backs)....just like the America we know....with its two faces and no friends.

[Coito ergo sum]

Would this shooting have been given the indepth autopsy it as here if it had occured in a run down drug infested district between people of no means?

If that was the scenario, then it would not have been a Congresswoman and a Chief Judge of a United States District Court, both of whom make in excess of $172,000, plus gold-plated benefits. By definition, such people cannot be of "no means."

So, if the question is - if Jared Lee Loughler shot 20 people at one time in a drug infested neighborhood, killing 5 of them, it would certainly have made the national news, but it would have been a relatively short lived story. But, I suspect that the same is true in any other place around the world - prominent figures get more coverage because more people are interested in them. I don't think there is anything really horrid about that - no offense, but I'd be more interested in a Congresswoman's murder than in the murder of John Q. Public.

In a spirit-level society people like this kook would not seek 'artificial prestige' by shooting prominent figures. It seems only a matter of time before the US becomes like South America and the wealthy will need gated communities with black-water private security. Then all the kidnappings of wealthy socialites and heads appearing everywhere like on the border with Mexico?

Hmmm.... what spirit-level societies are good models to follow so as to avoid shootings of prominent figures?

What happens in America once a fortnight doesn't happen everywhere on that scale. Guns also do something about emotional space I figure. If you can get shot by saying the wrong thing everyone puts on a false smile and shows bad faith(from a safe distance or behind each others backs)....just like the America we know....with its two faces and no friends.

Congressional shootings happen here once in a fortnight?

Where are Parliament members living under armed guard and/or driven from office by violent folks? Holland?

Where was Pim Fortuyn assassinated? (He was Austrian and shot in Holland) Andre' Cools? (Belgium)

Claude Erignac - prefect of Corsica. Marke Popula - Chief of Polish Police

Anna Lindh - Swedish Foreign Minister - Olof Palme Swedish Prime Minister

Stephan Senchuck in Ukraine. Ian Gow in England had his car blown up.

I love how you forget your own "incidents" and think that it "happens ever fortnight" here. Those above were in the last 20 years in Europe (most in the last few years). In the last 20 years in the US.....hmmm... generally, we compare Europe as a whole to the US as a whole, given their comparable sizes. Doesn't look much like these things happen more often on this side of the pond....if we actually think about it...