On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:55 AM, denstar wrote: >> >> You don't see it as a sad commentary on the state of the nation when >> you, let's say, /wouldn't be too surprised/ to hear someone was >> 'influenced' by things said by Palin and the Tea Party? > > Here is the funny part. Until this shooting, I had not known about > Palin's map (or the one put out by the DNC). I had not heard any of > Palin drivel about 'don't retreat, reload'. So, there really is no way > that could have influenced me either way. When I said 'right wing nut > job' - which, by the way, have existed long before Palin or the Tea > Party were around - I was not referring to their influence.
I was referring to violent rhetoric. Sorry if specifically mentioning Palin and the Tea Party implied that I think "it was them". You /were/ referring to an influence though, and that's what I'm talking about. >> Horse shoes and hand-grenades, my friend-- I'm not trying to put words >> in your mouth. There's no need. This *is* obvious stuff. >> >> We all wondered the same thing, and it wouldn't have mattered *what* >> was put in the headline-- "politician shot" would probably be enough, >> for people to go: "hrm, I wonder if someone took something that was >> said too far? They'd have to be nuts, but...". > > Not me, because, as I said, I had not heard most of the 'rhetoric' - > except maybe the '2nd amendment solution' crap, but I do not even > recall who said that, pretty sure it was not Palin. Oh, d'oh! I could have sworn that you said you weren't not saying that someone could not be 'influenced'. It seemed like perhaps you wouldn't be surprised to hear that violence and politics were mix'n, as it were. I stand corrected. Not much of what I said was pertinent then. =) > Now, isn't it possible that this guy had also not heard any of that > crap? I think it is, which is why I think a crap ton of people jumped > the gun in blaming Palin and the Tea Party for this shooting. That > does not mean I condone what they say. In the last few days, I have > wondered, aloud, 'why is it that crazy people don't go on a shooting > spree at the Westboro Baptist Church?' Does this mean that if someone > does that I would be responsible? I'm not one of the people "blaming" Palin and the Tea Party. Not for killing with their words, so to speak. I do think that the violent rhetoric has no place in politics though. Not as some kind of platform, for god's sake! It's like the whole, "vote for the other guy and you'll die!" type political meme. Just plain lame. Slimy, if you will. People "jumped the gun", so to speak, for a reason, no? Fuck, dude, even if the guy said "It was because of Palin's bulls-eye that I did what I did", that wouldn't make Palin directly responsible. You know this. What I'm talking about is taking responsibility. Taking responsibility for what we say, and how we portray "the other guys". > I am a big believer in personal responsibility. Obvious some on this > list, and elsewhere in the country, do not share that belief and > always look to blame someone other than the person who actually > commited the act. I think you're reading more into what folks are saying that what they are saying. Can I decry the 'violent rhetoric' without implying that I think the person doing the deed is somehow absolved of guilt? Or by stating that it's "bad form", do I somehow become, like, 'unpatriotic'-- like, to your mind, is it one and the same- 'just blame'? By writing off comments such as mine as "blame", it's a neat little way to avoid an obvious problem at hand. I can't tell if that's what you're doing, as I'm not sure if you're responding to what I'm writing specifically, or to "those people", or the MSM... Let me be clear though-- I no more blame Palin or the Tea Party for this guy's actions, than I do violent video-games for acts of violence. ... > Maybe I expect to much form the media. Oh, how I long for the days > where it was easy to tell the difference between 'news' and > 'commentary'. I understand spin, really, I do. But to start spinning > from the first reporting of a tragic story like this, that juts pisses > me the fuck off. See, you're pissed about the spin, and I'm pissed that there is anything *to* spin. Though I'm not really that pissed. Que sir rah, sir rah. :Den -- The logic of validation allows us to move between the two limits of dogmatism and skepticism. Paul Ric ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:333359 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
