GOP want to hang onto their Hate-Speech, contend it had nothing to do with attempted assassination

[Bill USA]

Last night on PBS NewsHour there was a discussion of whether and to what extent the political "discourse" which lately has included rather a considerable amount of demonization of people, and "doom"-speak ("THe world, as we know it, is coming to an end and it's 'THOSE guys' who are doing it... TO YOU"). Conservatives in particular have a real proclivity for using the "I'm a victim" trope which can lead people to rationalize almost any act against the Evil people out to take advantage of them.

REpublicans are now going to great pains to point out that you can't PROVE that Republican demogoguery CAUSED the would-be assassin to attempt to assassinate Gabrielle Giffords. David Brooks went so far as to say: "The relationship between speech and media and actual action is extremely murky."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/rhetoric_01-10.html

Well, David, why are you on tv talking to people? Do you not believe you can persuade and convince with your sophistry? If words are of dubious effectiveness in affecting the thinking and actions of other people then there's almost 7 Billion humans on this planet who do a lot of conversing with little reason for expecting it's doing any good in terms of getting what they want or persuading people to agree with them.

Really Mr. Brooks, to proffer the notion that the linkage between words spoken or read and actions or thinking of the listener is "extremely murky" seems to me to be an extremely murky proposition (that is to say, you are engaging in obfuscation). People have been talking and writing down words for quite a while now, fully convinced such activity WILL have an affect upon the listener or reader. And may I point out advertizers are paid billions of dollars every year for the purpose of affecting the behavior of listeners or readers.

... NOW, as to the shooter, yes, this guy is obviously a troubled person. But is he entirely out of touch with his environment? Is he catatonic? Is he totally autistic? NO he is not. He is affected by his environment and that includes the things that he has heard people say on tv or in person. He did not conceive his delusions ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN. There were inputs from his environment that did have an effect on him.


I would like to ask Republicans and various obfuscators of this issue a few questions which I feel are pertinent here:

..... According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are 6,595,778 residents of Arizona (not counting the illegals). HOw did the shooter narrow 6.6 million people down to Gabrielle Giffords? Is it just the result of random selection (and "bad luck") that he hit upon Ms. Giffords. Is that what you're saying Mr. Brooks?

.....Instable people do have a variety of ways of displaying their instabilities. Some abuse small animals, some throw rocks off bridges and some vandalize traffic meters or other inanimate objects. (Some make cable television careers from making bizarre claims and hinting they get messages from God). The ways of acting out for these people are numerous. I'm no expert on these matters but I would hazard a guess that it is a relatively small percentage of the instable population who buy guns and then kill people with them. IF the shooter had trouble with authority figures wouldn't he find many more available targets for his confused rage among the many uniformed local policemen he would see every day? HOw would you explain of all the many ways weirdness can express itself, this individual chose to try to kill somebody and then chose Ms. Giffords to be his victim?

Let's remember that unstable people, despite their cognitive impairments, can be quite sensitive to expressions of emotion (e.g. fear) and are cognizant of speech which is laced with a sense of foreboding (the "doomsday" talk I spoke of). The unstable are certainly affected by the emotions conveyed by the words spoken even if they cannot grasp any logical (or recognize illogical) arguments presented.

.....Lastly, to those who do not want to give up their Hate-speech, who claim this would be an infringement on their political expression, I would ask - can you prove that the shooter was NOT affected by hate speech and "doomsday" declarations (e.g. "there's gonna be Armageddon", "don't retreat, RELOAD", "second amendment solutions"). Since lives may hang in the balance ... is it so much to ask that people articulate their positions in terms of proposed solutions to problems and restrict their criticims to the programs proposed by those they disagree with and explaining why the programs they oppose won't work (or won't work as well as those they propose) ... and constrain themselves from depicting those they disagree with as evil people? Can conservatives confine themselves to presenting the advantages to their solutions compared to those proposed by those they disagree with?.. or would that be an intolerable infringement on their political expression?


...one FINAL question I'd like to ask: When you first heard that a Congresswoman had been shot, your first reaction was like anybody else's: "My god! how terrible!" ... and what was your second thought?? I'll bet it was like everybody else's: "I wonder if political Hate Speech & anti-Government diatribes caused/played a part in this terrible act?" .... you know what, I can answer that queston for you. Of course that's what you thought. THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY WAS THINKING!!

MR. Brooks, you said: "correllation is not causation" well, just to bring you up to speed epistemologically speaking, ... "causation" has been recognized as a comfortable myth for some time(circa David Hume). Actually, ALL WE HAVE IS CORRELATION. In making statements about Event "A" causing event "B" the word "cause" doesn't really add anything to the discussion. All we can really say is if event "A" is consistently (with statistical significance) followed by event "B", then in the future whenever Event "A" happens Event "B" is very likely to follow. We don't really know what "cause" means unless you mean merely that the occurrence of Event "A" will likely be followed by the occurence of event "B".

[KT2000]

1. It will not sound the same

we can argue about this but at least for the time being, the country is sensitive. The hardcore followers will want their daily dose but the tolerance level from the sane will go way down.
Hate will sound like hate.

[ZombieHorde]

2. For at least a month or two, then things will probably go back to normal. nt

[KT2000]

3. Agree n/t

[Bill USA]

4. (like your stick-Zombie)

[randr]

5. We must distiguish the hate speech from violent actions

They are hiding behind this argument over speech and ignoring the fact that there is a terrorist war against the left occurring right in front of our faces. Will the MSM ever let the cat out of the bag and hold people accountable.

[justgamma]

6. I posted this earlier. Here's my take.

The Republican defense of violent hate speech is that only the crazies and deranged would take what they say seriously.

[KT2000]

7. Who are they talking to -

if not the crazies, is what I would say to them.

[bulloney]

8. if they can't sound angry and hateful, they feel they don't have a case.

When was the last time you saw a teabagger, or other conservative use logic and rational conversation to make their point?

Instead, they use anger and intimidation, thinking they win just because their opponent doesn't want to go there.

[K8-EEE]

9. Good, let them hang on to it, they are going to turn off

everyone who is not a hardcore dittohead, which is the majority of the country. Their real problem is they don't have any reasonable arguments that can withstand a civil debate.

[checks-n-balances]

10. Just ask them if they believe that advertisements are effective

They will say yes, but at the same time deny that their utterances & memes have any bearing on violence. Then again, they are known (to us, anyway) for being disingenuous - even to themselves.

[yoyossarian]

11. Really well-written, with some truly excellent and salient points I'd not heard before...

I believe there is a shadow-war going on here, too...
it's a purge, and it's happening right now, and no
one ever seems to see what's happening until it's
their turn...

I think itt would be nice if they'd at least agree to
keep the kids out of it, though... but I'm not hopeful.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x171531">Could the leaders on the Right at least agree on some basic assassination rules?

Really great post, Bill! Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[JohnWxy]

12. excellent cross-examination of GOPers plea: "Hey, don't look at me. I didn't throw the rock!"

.... or in this case "shoot the gun".

Out of 6 million people how DID he narrow that number down to just one person - Gabriel Giffords? Was it just a random selection?

I liked your point about unstable people are still affected by their environment. In fact, unstable people are PARTICULARLY affected by either double-speak which those in full command of their rational faculties can see through - AND THEY ARE DEFINITELY affected by emotional speech. Even if their intellectual faculties may be compromised, they are quite sensitive to emotional and in particular "scary" speech, like "that guys out to GET you. You better watch out" ...

This demogoguery is, in particular, the conservatives 'bread and butter' message. Hell, they probably believe it themselves..I think that conservatism is not a political school of thought but a syndrome. IT's closely linked with paranoia. Conservatism starts with FEAR and then they try to develop plausible rationale for policies which are really meant to deal with their fears rather than actually address the real world problem/issue at hand.

I like the point too that: is it too much to ask people to propose solutions to problems and refrain from characterizing those they disagree with as EVIL (and therefore dangerous)?

Right: is that TOO MUCH TO ASK?

On the question of did hysterical political speech cause or contribute to this tragedy, Brooks seems to want 100% certainty. Which, when talking about human beings is probably never going to be achieveable. But you DON'T NEED 100% CERTAINTY when human lives hang in the balance. All you need is the possibility.

If there is just a chance that hysterical speech inciting people or implying that violence is an acceptable response - can cause one unstable person to go kill one person ... why should the Republicans be unwilling to remove that possiblity by dropping their demogoguery. ... All you are asking is dispense with the hate speech, the "dooms-day" speech - present your argument logically and show how your idea is better than your opponents ..WITHOUT SAYING (OR IMPLYING) YOUR OPPONENT IS EVIL.