Gabrielle Giffords

[Drum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_cwmZ-sPIA

Damn, they must have had their finger hovering over the button.

[Acid King]

I wonder what the final bill is going to look like.

In the wake of the tragic Arizona shooting, Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) says he plans to introduce a bill criminalizing the use of certain forms of threatening imagery against lawmakers and judges.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/dem- ... r-symbols/

EDIT: Have they even linked Palin or her map to the shooter? From the little bit I've read it seems like they haven't yet.

[Ex-Cyber]

Have they even linked Palin or her map to the shooter? From the little bit I've read it seems like they haven't yet.

The only "link" I've seen is that Giffords was one of the targeted people, which is tenuous at best.

[BulletMagnet]

Have they even linked Palin or her map to the shooter? From the little bit I've read it seems like they haven't yet.

I doubt they ever could, really. Either way, it was, at the very least, in incredibly bad taste - if she can get all hot and bothered over the word "retard" (except when Rush says it, of course), the rest of us ought to be able to question her choice of imagery here. Anyways, back on topic...

As for the proposed legislation, one would have thought that the use of this sort of imagery could already fall under existing laws against death threats and such, depending upon the circumstances - in this case I have to place myself, "in spirit" at least, with the "hands off" crowd, as attempting to establish more concrete definitions of what counts as "threatening" largely defeats the purpose. As I said earlier, in any reasonably civilized culture people who used this sort of rhetoric would be near-universally marginalized and rejected in favor of a less incendiary approach to important issues, without the need for a law against it - then again, the same ought to go for lots of despicable behavior, and I'm not exactly lining up to have the Civil Rights Act repealed.

[brentsg]

I wonder what the final bill is going to look like.

In the wake of the tragic Arizona shooting, Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) says he plans to introduce a bill criminalizing the use of certain forms of threatening imagery against lawmakers and judges.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/dem- ... r-symbols/

EDIT: Have they even linked Palin or her map to the shooter? From the little bit I've read it seems like they haven't yet.

No, he's apparently had it in for her for 3-4 years now. When it was announced that she was the victim, his friends knew that he was the shooter.

[brentsg]

I doubt they ever could, really. Either way, it was, at the very least, in incredibly bad taste - if she can get all hot and bothered over the word "retard" (except when Rush says it, of course), the rest of us ought to be able to question her choice of imagery here. Anyways, back on topic...

I was at the dentist office and they were showing a map that some Democrats were using with their election propaganda. It had bulls-eyes all over it, so the Palin thing is just one example. I'm not sure what news was on, just caught the sign being shown and saw some text via closed captioning.

[Drum]

I was at the dentist office and they were showing a map that some Democrats were using with their election propaganda. It had bulls-eyes all over it, so the Palin thing is just one example.

Ugh.

EDIT:

I think this is it:



And here's Palin's, for comparison:



fwiw I think this 'target' think is bunk.

[Ex-Cyber]

As for the proposed legislation, one would have thought that the use of this sort of imagery could already fall under existing laws against death threats and such, depending upon the circumstances - in this case I have to place myself, "in spirit" at least, with the "hands off" crowd, as attempting to establish more concrete definitions of what counts as "threatening" largely defeats the purpose. As I said earlier, in any reasonably civilized culture people who used this sort of rhetoric would be near-universally marginalized and rejected in favor of a less incendiary approach to important issues, without the need for a law against it - then again, the same ought to go for lots of despicable behavior, and I'm not exactly lining up to have the Civil Rights Act repealed.

Yeah, this is a cultural problem, not a legal problem, and I doubt that a bill that actually respects the first amendment would have much of an effect anyway.

I was at the dentist office and they were showing a map that some Democrats were using with their election propaganda. It had bulls-eyes all over it, so the Palin thing is just one example. I'm not sure what news was on, just caught the sigh being shown and saw some text via closed captioning.

I don't think the two send the same message unless you totally ignore all political and cultural context. The SarahPAC map used cross-hairs. The PAC is now saying that they're "surveying symbols", even though cross-hairs are predominantly used in popular media for targeting weapons, especially sniper rifles. Then you have the political figurehead, who is distinctive in the public mind partly for hunting with high-powered rifles, saying things like "Don't retreat, reload!" to an audience with fringe elements who seriously prepare for a "True Patriots vs. Government Goons" sort of civil war.

[brentsg]

I don't think the two send the same message unless you totally ignore all political and cultural context. The SarahPAC map used cross-hairs. The PAC is now saying that they're "surveying symbols", even though cross-hairs are predominantly used in popular media for targeting weapons, especially sniper rifles. Then you have the political figurehead, who is distinctive in the public mind partly for hunting with high-powered rifles, saying things like "Don't retreat, reload!" to an audience with fringe elements who seriously prepare for a "True Patriots vs. Government Goons" sort of civil war.

I think that's splitting hairs really, but I'm sure everyone is predisposed to believe that the "other side" is the problem.

Personally, I don't think it really matters on either side. Historically politicians have used war imagery, gun imagery, etc for campaign tools. This is nothing new. With all the concern about gun rights and the like, that's going to encourage some of it as well.

But really, I don't believe that it incites violence. I also don't think that everyone should curtail their language just because some idiots might take it the wrong way. If we are willing to do that on the political front then we need to do the exact same thing in movies, TV shows, videogames, etc. I mean if someone's going to shoot a politician because of something an opponent said or did, then think about all the evil things a movie can teach us to do.

I do wish we could tone it down for other reasons though. People in general aren't accepting of other's views. At my old workplace, during the Obama election.. it would have been career suicide to have voiced any anti-Obama opinions. It simply wasn't safe, since you were either pro-Obama or a fucking moron that wanted the country to spontaneously combust.

[Ex-Cyber]

I think that's splitting hairs really, but I'm sure everyone is predisposed to believe that the "other side" is the problem.

I think the SarahPAC map is a fairly minor issue in the grand scheme of things. I'm more worried about proto-fascist sort of rhetoric, i.e. anyone who paints any group of people as something akin to disease or vermin or a fifth column that we must cure/exterminate/destroy to restore our national purity. There's more of this than most people realize, and it leaves its marks on more mainstream debate (especially over immigration policy).

That apparently wasn't the shooter in this case, but it has been in others, which is one of the reasons that there was a seemingly knee-jerk association with this kind of rhetoric.

[brentsg]

That apparently wasn't the shooter in this case, but it has been in others, which is one of the reasons that there was a seemingly knee-jerk association with this kind of rhetoric.

Think about it from this perspective. How many times have politicians used tragic events as a power grab? It's so easy to do in the aftermath when people are looking for answers/blame/solutions/protection/etc. That's the first thing I thought of when I heard of the bill being proposed today.

[Ex-Cyber]

Think about it from this perspective. How many times have politicians used tragic events as a power grab? It's so easy to do in the aftermath when people are looking for answers/blame/solutions/protection/etc. That's the first thing I thought of when I heard of the bill being proposed today.

I don't think the bill is a power grab, I think it's political posturing, which is common with or without tragedy. If there's a power-grab reaction to this, I think it's very likely to be a more distributed and less distinct expansion of the "security" approach to various things (think TSA).

[brentsg]

So I'm all in favor of people owning guns.

But.. When a guy can't return to college because they feel he's mentally unstable and unsafe.. and when said individual's baggage keeps him out of the military, and he has a few other run-ins that flag him as a scary dude.. How does he quickly and easily buy a gun in a legal manner?

I think that's an issue we could address without trampling on any rights.

B

[Jon]

Ugh. My heart aches whenever I see a picture of that poor little girl that was cut down by that sick fuck

http://ktar.com/category/local-news-art ... on-9%5E11/

Hearing either side try to make political hay and make this turn of events about themselves makes my stomach turn:

Left: It was because of the Tea Party's vitriol and intolerance!
Right: Beck/Palin/Talk Radio had nothing to do with it and liberals/government will just use this event to silence us and take away our rights!

PLEASE STOP TALKING.

[Ex-Cyber]

So I'm all in favor of people owning guns.

But.. When a guy can't return to college because they feel he's mentally unstable and unsafe.. and when said individual's baggage keeps him out of the military, and he has a few other run-ins that flag him as a scary dude.. How does he quickly and easily buy a gun in a legal manner?

I think that's an issue we could address without trampling on any rights.

Was he ever actually diagnosed, though? One of the issues with mental health treatment, at least in this country, is that people often go for years between onset and diagnosis of mental illness (ISTR a study saying that 11 years was the average). I'm not sure a "someone somewhere thinks these people are crazy" database would be the greatest idea, and I'm not sure how you get something sufficiently rigorous without requiring a professional diagnosis.

[louisg]

I was at the dentist office and they were showing a map that some Democrats were using with their election propaganda. It had bulls-eyes all over it, so the Palin thing is just one example.

Ugh.

EDIT:

I think this is it:

(DNC map of target symbols over states)

And here's Palin's, for comparison:

(Palin's map of cross-hairs assoc'd with specific people, one of whom is in the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head)

fwiw I think this 'target' think is bunk.

Palin is an easy target (ha!) as usual, but her stupid poster is just another example of the sort of really extreme, violent, and dehumanizing stuff I continually hear from the right these days. I think the "target" map is fairly different; to compare the two so desperately is almost tantamount to an admission of guilt. Obviously, it's not just one thing that drove this guy over the edge, it's just that this kind of thing isn't helping.

[Acid King]

I don't think the two send the same message unless you totally ignore all political and cultural context. The SarahPAC map used cross-hairs. The PAC is now saying that they're "surveying symbols", even though cross-hairs are predominantly used in popular media for targeting weapons, especially sniper rifles.

...and a bullseye's sole purpose is to be shot at. It's inane to suggest one is somehow worse than the other.

[GaijinPunch]

Ugh. My heart aches whenever I see a picture of that poor little girl that was cut down by that sick fuck

Think of her poor parents. If you've never created life you can't fully grasp how shitty it would be to lose it. They will probably feel like someone stabbed them in the stomach for the rest of their days. Not to mention psychological trauma her friends will probably get.

[BryanM]

Now I'm really pissed off at this guy.

Not that he did something evil - no, you can find like 5 people a week on MyDeathSpace who are as bad. He did something all the other poor people don't - he ruined news completely for a week or two.

.... On the other hand, maybe it isn't that bad. The News Hour had Sleepy McDouchey Face on a loop 24/7. Might as well've called it the John Boehner Variety Hour.

... carry on.....

[Ex-Cyber]

...and a bullseye's sole purpose is to be shot at..

Not saying it's a good idea, but the first association for me is darts, second is archery.

[Acid King]

...and a bullseye's sole purpose is to be shot at..

Not saying it's a good idea, but the first association for me is darts, second is archery.

That's your perception which ignores "all political and cultural context". You could replace cross hair with bullseye in your initial response with the context (True patriots and gov't goons, Don't retreat reload) and it would change nothing. Your argument as to a difference between the two is so fuzzy it's nonexistent.

[Acid King]

This just in... IT WAS THE POT!

[doctorx0079]

Same old "hate speech" debate from years ago. Nothing new here.

[brentsg]

Same old "hate speech" debate from years ago. Nothing new here.

This time it's all new because a politician got shot. Oh wait..

[Ex-Cyber]

You could replace cross hair with bullseye in your initial response with the context (True patriots and gov't goons, Don't retreat reload) and it would change nothing.

I already said it was a bad idea because some people who are so far gone as to think it's all one message (which is what it would take; people who recognize the difference and buy into the right-wing rhetoric aren't likely to go out and kill Republicans based on a Democrat's map of targeted districts) might be triggered by it. I don't especially give a shit about the map; it's just a little candy sprinkle on the cake of neo-Bircher Tea Party vitriol.

[doctorx0079]

This is the best essay on the Arizona shootings:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/polit ... -hate.html#

[Ex-Cyber]

This is the best essay on the Arizona shootings:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/polit ... -hate.html#

0/10.

[BulletMagnet]

This is the best essay on the Arizona shootings:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/polit ... -hate.html#

I really, REALLY hope you're kidding. Just for starters:

There is a drive on now to blame the Tea Party, “right-wingers,” and any frank discussion of Obama and/or liberal politics for the shooting.

Sorry, but claims (right from that article) that Obama and the Dems have been passing "Socialist" legislation and that the country is "being transformed into a penal colony of servitude" are not "frank" - they're incendiary and slanderous, and deserve to be labeled and derided as such. And those aren't even the worst ones that have entered the discourse either - there's still regular blather about Obama being a secret Muslim/not a U.S. citizen, not to mention the utterly moronic "death panels" nonsense, among MANY others. By the way...

Since long before Barack Obama was elected president, no Republican, no member of the Tea Party, no conservative, no libertarian, no Objectivist, no prominent “anti-government” activist has ever advocated assassination or even an armed rebellion against the federal government.

Try again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. There's plenty more if you care to look...unless you're of the mind that as soon as a conservative says something like this he stops being a politico and reverts to "entertainer" status.

One more time: nobody rational is going to claim that this guy was acting at the direct behest of any other individual's or party's platform. What IS rational to claim is that the ongoing efforts by certain groups in particular to not only push back against but delegitimize their opponents ("we don't negotiate with fascists who hate freedom and want to take our rights away!") to the point where debate and compromise are not even on the table are explicitly implying that other routes must be taken to "make things right". Even without the risk of a handful of loons interpreting this rhetoric as a direct call to arms it has no place in any discourse worth participating in - in no situation, deadly or not, is such a self-important, irresponsible invocation of "freedom of speech" worth the cost to society's ability to live with itself.

[BulletMagnet]

On a separate note, our old friends at the Westboro Baptist Church were apparently planning to picket the funeral for the 9-year-old girl killed in the shooting ("God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America"), but the state legislature has apparently heard enough from them and decided to pass a law forbidding protests at funerals in general.

I went on a long enough rant in my previous post so I'll stop here for this one.

[GaijinPunch]

This just in... IT WAS THE POT!

LOL at dumb asses.

On a separate note, our old friends at the Westboro Baptist Church were apparently planning to picket the funeral for the 9-year-old girl killed in the shooting

LOL again at dumb asses... again.