To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
Mark David Chapman, upon murdering John Lennon, had a copy of Catcher in the Rye in his pocket. Should we have excoriated J. D. Salinger? The Unabomber had a well-annotated copy of Earth in the Balance in his dismal Montana shack. Should we have told Al Gore to watch his mouth?
One last thing -- Gabrielle Giffords offered the proper response in the well of the House.
6 comments:
Didn't John Hinckley cite Jodie Foster as the inspiration for him shooting President Reagan? You get where I'm going.....
Brad, I think I do, it was Disney's Fault, or had she done her first Halloween movie by then?
The WSJ article? I'm actually trying to type despite choking on irony, here. HE'S calling out dishonesty?! Right.
My favorite response to that comes from a Shakesville post today:
Faced with the overwhelming evidence of the violent rhetoric absolutely permeating the discourse emanating from their side of the aisle, conservatives adopt the approach of a petulant child—deny, obfuscate, and lash out defensively.
And engage in the most breathtaking disingenuous hypocrisy: Conservatives, who vociferously argue against the language and legislation of social justice, on the basis that it all "normalizes" marginalized people and their lives and cultures (it does!), are suddenly nothing but blinking, wide-eyed naïveté when it comes to their own violent rhetoric.
They have a great grasp of cultural anthropology when they want to complain about progressive ideas, inclusion, diversity, and equality. But when it comes to being accountable for their own ideas, their anthropological prowess magically disappears.
***
It might have been a little different if "Catcher in the Rye" promoted not 'retreating in the favor of reloading,' etc etc. But it doesn't. That's why nobody linked Salinger to the assassination attempt.
But accusing Liberals of taking the position that violent rhetoric is directly the cause of the shooting is being obtuse (the idea is, that the rhetoric creates a culture, encourages such behavior - there IS a difference). It's also a refusal to take responsibility for the fact that in the VERY least, the tragedy highlights the incredibly poor taste of violent rhetoric.
However, this article in particular documents so-called isolated incidents, intertwined with the violent rhetoric that *totally didn't* cause or contribute to them! http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline Argue of course, about the bias of the organization who compiled it, but the news articles and quotes are certainly verified by other sources.
The shooting was caused by many things - this was a mentally unbalanced individual, and one who had access to guns, thanks in part to some super-relaxed gun laws. The shooting was also perpetrated by an individual who lives in a culture of highly incendiary language and hostility. Mentally unbalanced, or whatever his condition is, doesn't make him less of a human who can and will absorb such things.
To accuse people of making cheap political points after the tragedy about gun laws, or mental illness, or a culture of violent rhetoric in this country, is like saying that these people should die/be injured without any impact or pledge to make this a world a place in which deaths like that couldn't happen. We CAN have stricter gun laws (YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HUNTING RIFLES FOR GOODNESS' SAKE), we CAN create better access/treatment for mentally ill individuals. And we can quit talking about murdering anybody who disagrees with us. Even metaphorically!
Conservative (and any) hate speech does NOT exist in a void. I know that we can all be better than that.
Finally, I just want to say: I know that you are all good people here, and equally horrified over this tragedy, in addition to whatever other tragedies would take place if people actually took the language of politicians and the like literally. Why not join those who are asking politicians and the media to eject violent rhetoric from their speeches and comments? What harm could it do? I only see positivity, in that kind of a culture.
The commenting hijinks are my fault (well, my internet's fault), and then Mr. D said I should re-post it, anyway - probably so he can shoot down all my points! - but since I never intended for the comment to disappear in the first place, I shall do so.
_____________
I love how total a-holes get to be paid to write for huge, influential papers like the WSJ. I'm actually trying to type despite choking on irony, here. HE'S calling out dishonesty?! Right.
My favorite response to that comes from a Shakesville post today:
Faced with the overwhelming evidence of the violent rhetoric absolutely permeating the discourse emanating from their side of the aisle, conservatives adopt the approach of a petulant child—deny, obfuscate, and lash out defensively.
And engage in the most breathtaking disingenuous hypocrisy: Conservatives, who vociferously argue against the language and legislation of social justice, on the basis that it all "normalizes" marginalized people and their lives and cultures (it does!), are suddenly nothing but blinking, wide-eyed naïveté when it comes to their own violent rhetoric.
They have a great grasp of cultural anthropology when they want to complain about progressive ideas, inclusion, diversity, and equality. But when it comes to being accountable for their own ideas, their anthropological prowess magically disappears.
***
It might have been a little different if "Catcher in the Rye" promoted not 'retreating in the favor of reloading,' etc etc. But it doesn't. That's why nobody linked Salinger to the assassination attempt.
But accusing Liberals of taking the position that violent rhetoric is directly the cause of the shooting is being obtuse (the idea is, that the rhetoric encourages such behavior - there IS a difference). It's also a refusal to take responsibility for the fact that in the VERY least, the tragedy highlights the incredibly poor taste of violent rhetoric.
However, this article in particular documents so-called isolated incidents, intertwined with the violent rhetoric that *totally didn't* cause or contribute to them! http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline Argue of course, about the bias of the organization who compiled it, but the news articles and quotes are certainly verified by other sources.
The shooting was caused by many things - this was a mentally unbalanced individual, and one who had access to guns, thanks in part to some super-relaxed gun laws. The shooting was also perpetrated by an individual who lives in a culture of highly incendiary language and hostility. Mentally unbalanced, or whatever his condition is, doesn't make him less of a human who can and will absorb such things.
To accuse people of making "cheap" political points after the tragedy about gun laws, or mental illness, or a culture of violent rhetoric in this country, is like saying that these people should die/be injured without any impact or pledge to make this a world a place in which deaths like that couldn't happen. We CAN have stricter gun laws (YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HUNTING RIFLES FOR GOODNESS' SAKE), we CAN create better access/treatment for mentally ill individuals. And we can quit talking about murdering anybody who disagrees with us. Even metaphorically!
Conservative (and any) hate speech does NOT exist in a void. I know that we can all be better than that.
Finally, I just want to say: I know that you are all good people here, and equally horrified over this tragedy, in addition to whatever other tragedies would take place if people actually took the language of politicians and the like literally. Why not join those who are asking politicians and the media to eject violent rhetoric from their speeches and comments? What harm could it do? I only see positivity, in that kind of a culture.
Testing, one, two, three.
Better check and see if he had a turntable in his apartment...and if so check if any albums appear to have been played backwards.
Post a Comment