Arizona

[jmermin]

Yeah, I'm gonna go there.

So there's a thread on coleoptera's facebook in which (very loosely summarized) coleoptera calls for the victims to sue Sarah Palin, and LF decries the implicit blame assignment as a formal logical fallacy

Comments

[coleoptera]

I loved this

[jmermin]

I respect where you're coming from here, but the cure you propose is far worse than the disease.

First, we should recognize that -pretending for the moment that the bullseye map is the only monstrous thing she's ever done- Palin's moral culpability in the shooting of Representative Giffords and her constituents is exactly the same today as it was last week, and exactly the same as her culpability in the shooting of Representative Rahall and his constituents (which, it is devoutly to be wished, will never happen).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have an oracle which can determine this level of guilt. Could Giffords have taken Palin to court last week, or did she have to wait for someone to actually shoot her? Can Rahall take her to court now, on the grounds that the nutjob who finally cracked was equally likely to be in his district? A negative answer to either question is nonsensical, but a positive answer discards habeas corpusEither way, suppose you manage to bring her to justice, however it's defined. Since you

[coleoptera]

Most of what you say is accurate, but ignores the fact that irresponsible speech led to crimes including murder. The victims and families of those crimes have a right to ask for justice. I don't suggest that they should or will receive it, but that I believe that the question should be asked again in a court of law. It is much more about that process than it is about the outcome. This isn't anything like a SLAPP - these people have legitimate claims to make that deserve to be heard. To ignore such a potential avenue for justice is to cede that right.

Her moral culpability is not the same last week as it is this week. Actions matter.

[fractal9091]

I think that last sentence is an good and important point. Really, we don't know a priori what the actual danger of a given action is, and the danger is not constant. For example, Jeff could post violent metaphors in his LJ, and trust that his audience consists of sensible people who would never act on such things. In that situation, the only way to judge whether he is in fact being responsible or not is to look at the outcome - did any of his readers actually go and do something stupid? If something does happen, his metaphors would have to reevaluated in that context

[eve_prime]

Your post inspired me to collect some of the dehumanizing terms that have been used in rhetoric to support terrorism and/or genocide. This is one facet of the research my advisor and I have been doing.

Pigs (police and bourgeois enemies of the Baader-Meinhof gang)

Demons (the Sinhalese, as described by the Tamil Tigers)

Cockroaches (the Tutsi, as described by the Hutu, in Rwanda)

Worm, cockroach, and “murderous vultures” (enemies of the Shining Path in Peru)

“Useless” and “savages” (rhetoric underlying the Trail of Tears)

“Ineradicably savage” and “morally deficient” (Australian aborigines; including an argument in Parliament that “that there was no scientific evidence to link Aborigines with humanity whatsoever”)

Food for dogs; pigs; and “dangerous microbes” or “invasive germs” (Armenians, as described by Ottoman-era Turks)

Animals (natives of the Belgian Congo)

“Bloodsuckers, spiders and vampires” (relatively wealthy peasants, as described by Stalin)

Weeds, filth, trash, poison, germ-carriers, devils, monsters,

[johnthacker]

So, I'm willing to conclude that the rhetorical climate is as ugly as it's been in recent memory, and that Sarah Palin and her fellow travelers share most of the responsibility.

Sure, if you define "fellow travelers" to include all politicians, right and left. Because Democrats are not any better, and the hate machine on the left is no better either.

Well, there's Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) saying about Rick Scott, the new governor of Florida (when he was running):

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook"

That's a "level 5" statement, but no one really cares about it. You probably haven't even heard about it, because he's a Democrat. Instead, Kanjorski gets space in the New York Times to talk

[johnthacker]

To correct one thing, the Snipers Wanted was Daily Show when Craig Kilborn was host, my fault.

"For example, we can ask how many have made a credible attempt to engage in politically motivated violence recently."

The guy who took the Discovery Channel hostage and Ted Kaczysnki were both seemingly politically motivated. I don't think it's fair to blame all the hate-fueled environmentalist rhetoric for them, though.

Nor do I think that most people making antiwar arguments, no matter how heated, are responsible for the rash of vandalisms and bomb threats at recruiting offices, nor do I feel the need to blame Democrats for the arson at Sarah Palin's church.

Or the guy who tried to run over Katherine Harris (R-FL). Or the Wisconsin Kerry campaign workers (including the son of a congresswoman and son of a former Milwaukee mayor) who were convicted on slashing tires on vans rented by Wisconsin Republicans.

[jmermin]

It'd be a lot easier to respond to this if you'd put it all in one place. I'll do my best

[johnthacker]

It's not particularly fair to focus on the unhinged at rallies, but I can sure provide plenty of those examples too.

The Holocaust Museum shooter was, unsurprisingly, against the War in Iraq and a 9/11 Truther. That doesn't give any responsibility to people who were against the war, even if plenty of racist idiots have used antiwar arguments to help reinforce their own insane views.

The shooter here in Arizona absolutely hated Christianity, but I wouldn't blame atheists for him.

The Fort Hood shooting was more "politically motivated" than this one (unless you take this guy's crazy comments about the government controller grammar that weirded out even UFO conspiracy theorists and his hate since 2007 for Giffords over not answering some nutso question of his), even if again it seems like the guy was mentally ill, he sure thought it was for political reasons.

[johnthacker]

"The limited information we have on this Loughner character - who is innocent until proven guilty, by the way - suggests that he's some cross between high-school outcast and hate-fueled libertarian"

Yes, I can see how the comments that were already out before yesterday by his friends about how he was "quite left-wing" in 2007, his obsession with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violating the Geneva conventions, his attacks on religion, his praise of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf,

The goldbugs thought he was nuts, as did the UFO conspiracy theorists on online forums; his comments about an "infinite source of currency" are anathema to the actual (still somewhat nutty) gold standard obsessives.

Your confirmation bias is showing, Jeff. I could easily take a few pieces of his profile out of context as well and show that he was "really" on the radical Left and influenced by the climate of things there.

In reality, the guy was paranoid schizophrenic.