Gabrielle Giffords attack

[Flat_Eric]

David Johnson wrote:

>>


That's the same sort of argument and "logic" that the Mary Whitehouses and Liz Longhurts of this world use to campaign against porn ("sexual imagery leads to offending blah blah", "words like slut and bitch demean and encourage violence against women blah blah"), so really David I'm amazed that you choose to spend so much time hanging around a porn-related forum. After all, if you're so concerned about the power of pictures and the written word, aren't you just a tad concerned that the proliferation of such imagery and verbage could lead to more sex attacks?!

As I said above, in view of what happened, the map and the "don't retreat, reload" phrase were perhaps a tad unfortunate. But they were quite obviously (to any right-thinking, sensible person with more than half a brain cell anyway) being used purely figuratively, and weren't intended to be taken literally. And the individual who's now in custody over the attack is clearly deranged and has a long-held grudge against the US government. So it's unlikely that he was tipped over the edge and driven to violence by a map with cross-hairs drawn on it, or some slogan. He'd have probably done it anyway.

And all this "what if Muslims had said this" stuff you keep going on about is just speculation. It depends on exactly what was said. So what is it (exactly) that Palin said that you think was so inciteful and that she should be arrested for? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to supply us with some links so that we can see just what it is you have a problem with.

- Eric

[David Johnson]

Do the following inflammatory comments in this link make violence less or more likely to occur do you think?

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=240932&t=240901

Cheers
D

[Flat_Eric]

Do you think that these lyrics are more or less likely to incite violence? (Specifically the reference to an ?M-16 automatic?).



You?ll be telling us next that if Billy Bragg had written that, the Yanks would be wanting to extradite him to stand trial.

- Eric

[David Johnson]

Give me strength!

To say someones eyes (an anonymous person) are like an automatic in a pop song is absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER like the inflammatory remarks about Obama and the democrats in the quotes I gave you.

If you cant see that then there is not much point continuing this, as far as I can say.

Jesus wept

D

[Robches]

None of this changes the fact that Sarah Palin and/or the Tea Party did not advocate murder, which is the line the left are taking to slander them. It's a really sick piece of politics. The killer had no links with the Tea Party, and seems to have been a mentally ill man with an obsession about grammar, and an undefined and irrational grudge against the congresswoman dating back to 2007. Nothing to do with Sarah Palin, nothing to do with the Tea Party, nothing to do with politcal debate. The way leftists, including the media, have seized on an act of mass murder to try and score political points really marks a new low.

[David Johnson]

I have not argued that Palin advocated murder. So, do the inflammatory comments that I quoted here

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=240932&t=240901

make violence more likely to occur in a country with a long history of political assassinations and right wing/religious attacks e.g. Oklahoma bombings, abortion clinic assassinations etc.?

If the answer is Yes which I believe it is, then Palin and her Tea Party chums have something to answer for and you cannot just say "nothing to do with her and the tea party"

If the answer is No, I just hope that Fox News and its ilk never comes to the UK.

Cheers
D

[Flat_Eric]

Really David. Sometimes I think you take the discource on this forum FAR too seriously. Because you don't half get all hot under the collar.

But back to the discussion: you even admit that Palin & Co. haven't called for anyone to be murdered, or even advocated "violence". Just used what you call "violent language", pointing out that there are those in the States that also feel it's inappropriate because - in their opinion - it's likely to "incite violence".

Which brings us back to my Whitehouse / Longhurst / porn analogy, and my contention that using such verbage and drawing maps with cross-hairs on them is no more likely to incite violence in normal, rational, sane human beings than exposure to porn is to cause a normal, rational and sane humen being to go out and commit rape.

Could it tip some nutter over the edge? Anything's possible I suppose. But I think the counterargument to that is that anyone likely to be so affected is going to be seriously deranged to begin with, and is likely to offend anyway.

- Eric

[Arginald Valleywater]

Quick lets ban guns and treat everyone like 3 year olds. You have as much chance of getting Americans to give up guns as to them allowing compulsory sex abuse of the children.

[Robches]

As far as anyone can see, this killer had nothing to do with the Tea Party, and was not influenced by their rhetoric at all, yet this has not stopped the left seeking to smear Sarah Palin and the Tea Party before the dead are even cold. Don't you find this sick?

[David Johnson]

I suspect that you do not have much of a historical perspective.

Take the Fox News view "This is a presenter who's said that liberals want to set up internment camps for patriots and that President Obama is a racist. He regularly warns that violence and revolution are coming to America. In September, he claimed on his show: "I believe these are the most dangerous two years of our republic. Because in the end, in revolutions, the real dangerous killers show up when things start to fall apart"

This clearly demonises Obama and his supporters and implies that they as a danger to the republic and dangerous killers. It is the use of such language which is prevalent within groups that are trying to objective certain types of people in this case, democrats. Once you have done that it is easier and more justifiable to attack them.

If you want a good, historical example look at Germany in the 30's. The Nazis objectified the Jews saying they represented a threat to the nation and everything which the German nation held dear, a bit like the Tea Party objectify the Democrats. By objectifying the Jews as being almost sub-human but at the very least, a threat to German freedom, it made it much easier to attack them.

I disagree with your views. No more to be said from my point of view.

Cheers
D