But, I will say that I left out the portion where I described my belief that Loughner's political beliefs were more "stupid" than any particular party allegiance.
Regardless, if you have a large number of leaders spouting eliminationist rhetoric, it's going to disinhibit people.
No, it's qualitatively different from violent fiction, or songs, or things like that, which are presented as metaphor and fiction. Very much so
( ... )
Also to say that the right is engaged in a "eliminationist rhetoric", a term that should be reserved for outright political genocide is as pretty inflammatory rhetoric, as far as I'm concerned. Pissing and moaning about "them durn liberals is stealing yer wealth and yer guns," is a lot different than, "all liberals must me exterminated" as they are being actively lead to concentration camps. Here's some quotes
( ... )
I don't get the impression that the incidents listed are part of any sort of organized insurrection movement, but rather a collection of loosely linked incidents that "seem" like they promote violent insurrection?
Which is precisely the point I'm aiming at. This kind of incitement is not direct, "I order you to go out and kill person X" type of incitement. It's more a stochastic kind of thing, where they put out rhetoric that deliberately plays to the paranoid fantasies of violent extremists, and then sit back and wait for one of them to act on it. Then they can cry crocodile tears over how they really didn't mean it, or somesuch.
Stochastic terrorism is not new, either: "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?!" is famous for a reason.
But as long as we agree that violent assaults are not appropriate for political debate, I think we can stop here.
(The comment has been removed)
But, I will say that I left out the portion where I described my belief that Loughner's political beliefs were more "stupid" than any particular party allegiance.
Regardless, if you have a large number of leaders spouting eliminationist rhetoric, it's going to disinhibit people.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I don't disagree about the role of mental illness, but I don't think this shit happened in a vacuum.
Here, this is a more recent list: http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Which is precisely the point I'm aiming at. This kind of incitement is not direct, "I order you to go out and kill person X" type of incitement. It's more a stochastic kind of thing, where they put out rhetoric that deliberately plays to the paranoid fantasies of violent extremists, and then sit back and wait for one of them to act on it. Then they can cry crocodile tears over how they really didn't mean it, or somesuch.
Stochastic terrorism is not new, either: "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?!" is famous for a reason.
But as long as we agree that violent assaults are not appropriate for political debate, I think we can stop here.
Reply
Leave a comment