Free Speech and Inflammatory Rhetoric

[WinePusher]

With the recent tragedy in Tuscon Arizona, many on the left have been blaming this on conservatives and their supposed "inflammatory rhetoric." Conservative leaders such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, Sharon Angle and others have been their primary targets. They have focused particular attention on Palins bullet map and the call to use "second amendment remedies" by Sharon Angle.

But let's look a little closer at this. The DNC used a bullet map similar to Palin, people on the left like Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy have called for the death of some presidents and conservative leaders, a documentary was made about killing Bush by a leftist, and Obama himself has made inflammatory remarks with violent connotations. The left also was so concerned about jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood, but jumps to conclusions about the political affiliations of this psychopath in the absense of evidence.

1) Are second amendment remedies to problems ever justified? Remember that the point of the 2nd amendment was to combat a tyrannical government.

2) Are conservatives to blame for this?

3) Are liberals being hypocrties by jumping to conclusions over this, and not jumping to conclusions over Fort Hood. Are they also being hypocrites for charging conservatives with violent and inflammatory rhetoric while leaving their own ranks uncondemned?

[East of Eden]

1. No.

2. No.

3. Yes & Yes.

[LiamOS]

Are second amendment remedies to problems ever justified? Remember that the point of the 2nd amendment was to combat a tyrannical government.

I'm opposed to carrying weapons, but all it does is make it a bit easier to kill someone in a case like this.
I sincerely doubt that firearm availability has a notable impact on premeditated killing, but it almost certainly does on crimes of opportunity.

Are conservatives to blame for this?

Some are. In the same way, some Muslims are to blame for 9/11.

Are liberals being hypocrties by jumping to conclusions over this, and not jumping to conclusions over Fort Hood. Are they also being hypocrites for charging conservatives with violent and inflammatory rhetoric while leaving their own ranks uncondemned?

I don't feel that I have the social experience to draw any conclusions on this one.

[WinePusher]

Are conservatives to blame for this?

Some are. In the same way, some Muslims are to blame for 9/11.

Can you please justify this. The killer has been described as a left wing zealot by former classmates amd he was apparently inspired by The Communist Manifesto. Do you think liberals bear any responsibility, or just conservatives? If you are speaking to inflammatory discourse in general which is engaged in by both sides, then you have firm ground to stand on. But if you're saying that inflammation is exclusive only to conservatives then you do not because there are many examples showing otherwise.

Are liberals being hypocrties by jumping to conclusions over this, and not jumping to conclusions over Fort Hood. Are they also being hypocrites for charging conservatives with violent and inflammatory rhetoric while leaving their own ranks uncondemned?

I don't feel that I have the social experience to draw any conclusions on this one.

Edit: Thank You. I appreciate the honesty.

[LiamOS]

Can you please justify this. The killer has been described as a left wing zealot by former classmates amd he was apparently inspired by The Communist Manifesto. Do you think liberals bear any responsibility, or just conservatives? If you are speaking to inflammatory discourse in general which is engaged in by both sides, then you have firm ground to stand on. But if you're saying that inflammation is exclusive only to conservatives then you do not because there are many examples showing otherwise.

I believe that the more extreme political wings of all sides bear a lot of responsibility, but I'm not sure I'd use the term liberal here, as liberal doesn't exactly qualify as a political extreme. In my experience of things, liberals are inherently pacifistic and moderate, but it may be vastly different in your country.

[Darias]

Are conservatives to blame for this?

Some are. In the same way, some Muslims are to blame for 9/11.

Can you please justify this. The killer has been described as a left wing zealot by former classmates amd he was apparently inspired by The Communist Manifesto. Do you think liberals bear any responsibility, or just conservatives? If you are speaking to inflammatory discourse in general which is engaged in by both sides, then you have firm ground to stand on. But if you're saying that inflammation is exclusive only to conservatives then you do not because there are many examples showing otherwise.

1.) He also owned Mein Kampf. He smoked pot and was paranoid about the government. He could have been a Libertarian for all we know! He was no more a 'left-wing radical' than a 'right-wing nut job.' His paranoia and delusions of power and control typifies the guy as a paranoid schizophrenic. That's all we can say that he was.

2.) Now schizophrenics have a hard time differentiating what is being said in general terms and what is being said directly to them. Sometimes they hear the news and think that it's addressing them. I mean, like this for instance:

[center][/center]


3.) The fact is troubled individuals can be highly susceptible to such language regardless of where it is coming from. I think the sheriff was right about that fact, but wrong about suggesting that it only comes from the right. Within hours of the tragedy, Liberals were making a political stink about the situation. Of course that doesn't pardon Rush Limbaugh from claiming that the Pima County Sheriff. . .

Wouldn't Mind If The Shooter's Acquitted
_____
SOURCE

I mean, if there's vitriol -- it's happening now on both sides -- and both sides are to blame for such rhetoric. . .

. . . but only Loughner pulled the trigger. And it would be politicizing the tragedy to lay the blame on Sarah Palin

[Board]

1. No of course not... unless you are in an enslaved dictatorship there are peaceful means to an end.
2. No
3. Honestly no they are not. They are being ignorant and childish just like the conservative crowd would be if the sides were changed. But calling the hypocrites is just more inflammatory rhetoric.

Lets look at the facts... coming from NPR no less and it supports conservatives! oh my!



The study found that most political assassins or attempted assassins were simply out for fame and a political target grants you the most fame. Nothing more and nothing less.

Do both sides need to calm down over issues? YES

The truly sad part in all of this is it took human lives for politicians to think twice about the words that come out of their mouth. They cannot be blamed for this act of violence but I am one who is glad that some are at least verbally professing a change of heart.

[EduChris]

...liberals are inherently...moderate...

Do you mean "classic liberalism," which strives for open-mindedness and a determination to promote mutual respect? If so, I agree. But in the USA, ironically, intelligent and educated "conservatives" are more likely to be "classical liberals" than the group which today here carries the "liberal" label.

Words change over time. In the USA, "liberal" almost never means "classical liberal."

[nygreenguy]

First, I would like you to list the specific examples of the Stuff Obama and Mr. Shultz said, and until I see that...


I dont think there is any way you can equate what comes out of the left vs the right. On the left, I think the craziness is limited to bloggers and nobodies while on the right, it comes from those in the media and the politicians themselves. I think its much more dangerous when you people people of power saying this insane stuff.

1) Are second amendment remedies to problems ever justified? Remember that the point of the 2nd amendment was to combat a tyrannical government.

Only if you are a knuckle dragger. In this day and age and in America, more problems have been solved using non-violent means than any sort of violent way.

Look at the original tea part, the marching of women and blacks for rights, the sit ins for vietnam, the fighting for labor laws, etc...

2) Are conservatives to blame for this?

No, but this did open up a debate that needed to happen.

3) Are liberals being hypocrties by jumping to conclusions over this, and not jumping to conclusions over Fort Hood. Are they also being hypocrites for charging conservatives with violent and inflammatory rhetoric while leaving their own ranks uncondemned?

I think the blame directed to conservaties has dwindled, but the expectation for some sort of responsibility for the stuff they say has not. Since I dont see the equivalent on the left, I dont think there is a double standard.

[Grumpy]

"Blood Libel"
Sarah Palin.

You see, words have meanings, and what you say can have consequences beyond anything actually meant by the speaker. The shooter bears 100% of the blame for his actions, but Sarah and Rush bear the blame for the vitriolic mendaciousness displayed for the last two years against Obama, the Democrats and even Republicans who dare step out of line. Fueled by the Fox noise machine the level of discourse raced towards the bottom with both sides trying to be more outrageous than the other. Many lies, innuendo and outright slander followed, again, some on both sides participating.

At the time Sarah said "Don't retreat, reload"the Conservatives protested that this was just free speech and it was. It was IRRESPONSIBLE free speech, the point many made at the time. The reason why it was irresponsible is because there are crazies in this country who will take you at your word, literally. Do churches who oppose abortion bear responsibility for Eric Rudolph? No. Can some church's way of speaking about others who disagree with them influence the behavior of the Eric Roudolphs of this world? Yes.

Sarah may not be responsible for the behavior of this madman but her chances of being elected just tanked because we recognize her responsibility for her irresponsible rhetoric. May it be a lesson to others to be responsible for what you are saying. It's not a matter of legal responsibility, it is one of a moral responsibility.

Grumpy