Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition, 6 others killed in Arizona

[cinyc]

The trouble is, it's a reasonable conclusion to leap to (for various reasons) even if it may well be wrong. Violent political language often leads to political violence, though, of course, we don't know whether that was the case here.

That is pure nonsense, whose logical conclusion would lead to a ban on political speech lest someone get hurt.   The only conclusion that is reasonable to leap to is no conclusion at all until all the facts are known.  The shooter could have any motivation or no motivation at all.

[cinyc]

The trouble is, it's a reasonable conclusion to leap to (for various reasons) even if it may well be wrong. Violent political language often leads to political violence, though, of course, we don't know whether that was the case here.

That is pure nonsense, whose logical conclusion would lead to a ban on political speech lest someone get hurt.   The only conclusion that is reasonable to leap to is no conclusion at all until all the facts are known.  The shooter could have any motivation or no motivation at all.

How is that the logical conclusion? The logical conclusion might be that politicians shouldn't engage in to hateful rhetoric and that doing so is irresponsible.

Although hate speech legislation does exist for a reason.

What politicians are engaging in "hateful rhetoric"?  Why is it always the politicians that the speaker (usually on the left) disagrees with, while those on their own side can speak no "hate"?

Thankfully, there isn't much in the way of hate speech legislation in the US.  Hate speech legislation exists for no reason but to shut up those with whom people in power disagree.  Words don't kill people.

[cinyc]

There are a lot of conflicting reports. I still do hope she's alive.

Agreed.

[cinyc]

Who cares about Limbaugh or Palin, six people are dead...

Maybe not.  It might be four, not 6.  I think only one death is confirmed for sure.

Most more recent reports don't give a tally.

[cinyc]

Who cares about Limbaugh or Palin, six people are dead...

Maybe not.  It might be four, nor 6.  I think only one death is confirmed for sure.

Hopefully the count is kept to a minimum... CNN is reporting six and that's the only news channel I have.

The Arizona Republic says at least 4 dead.  NPR's revised article just says at least 9 injured.  Early counts often change, hopefully downward.

[cinyc]

The child who died was 9 years old.

Giffords's wound was a through-and-through on "one side of the brain".  If the previous report that she was capable of speaking is true, it's quite likely that means the wound was in her right hemisphere.

Shot "one time in the head through and through" does not necessarily mean the bullet hit her brain.  The head contains more than the brain.  

The good news is that doctors are optimistic about the Congresswoman's recovery.  The bad news is that others still died.

[cinyc]

Look the Tea Party may not have been directly responsible, but with someone like the shooter who most likely has mental problems, rhetoric from people like Palin, Angle, Paul, and others about the second amendment, and freedom of speech, and immigration must have had some effect on the individual to carry out the attack. The Tea Party does have indirect responsibility and shouldn't be acting as if they don't.

Words don't kill people.  Political rhetoric usually doesn't kill people.  The myth that the political rhetoric today is worse than it has ever been is just that - a huge myth.  It was much worse in the 1800s, and has ebbed and flowed through American history.  A sitting vice president actually shot and killed a former Secretary of the Treasury not so long ago in the grand scheme of history.

And if you want to talk about the supposed rhetoric against Giffords raised by the right, you can't ignore that the darling of the left, Kos, put her on his "target list" and put a "bulls eye" on her district.  One poster on his site also claimed Giffords was "dead to me".  Oh no!  That's violent imagery, if taken at face value, which of course, it was never meant to be.  

Trying to ordain a political motive from this particular shooter's actions isn't possible.

[cinyc]

The Sheriff of Pima County spoke several times about vitriol from radio talk show hosts and general political discourse and how absolutely destructive it is in his press conference.

The Sheriff of Pima County is a hard left Democrat who said he would disregard the Arizona immigration law.  Just because he has a fancy title doesn't make him any less of a partisan hack. 

Words don't kill people.

[cinyc]

All of this is very sad. I wish Congresswoman Giffords the best possible recovery.

We don't know whether or not (or to what degree) the assailant was influenced by right-wing rhetoric. But, in any case, people should realize that hateful words do have a potential to lead to hateful actions.

"People" don't have to realize anything of the sort.  If anything, "people" should realize that human beings have free will and are responsible for their own actions.   Nobody can tell someone else what to do.  Whatever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?

Most of the rhetoric on the right simply isn't necessary. It's as simple as that. Can't we all agree on that and go from there?

Absolutely not.  Why is it always the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle that's simply not necessary?  What about the rhetoric on the left?  What about a Presidential candidate telling his supporters to "get in [the] face" of his political opponents?  Was that necessary?  How about a left-wing blogger calling Gifford a "target" and saying there should be a "bulls eye" on her district?  If those on the left want to moralize about the supposedly toxic political discourse, their fellow leftists simply don't get a free pass.  As I've said before, though, the political environment has been much worse in the past.  History is almost always quickly forgotten.

And whose job is it to determine which political rhetoric is necessary, anyway?  The First Amendment protects political speech first and foremost.  Nobody on the left or right should be put in charge of determining what political speech is necessary or hateful or whatever epithet you want to throw at political rhetoric you disagree with.  As far as I know, nobody in the mainstream ever advocated the assassination of Congresswoman Giffords or any other US politician.

[cinyc]

Again, the very point of all of this is very easy to understand. Rather or not anyone's rhetoric sparked the shooting, there are people who still need to stop using rhetoric that can incite trouble. We don't need anymore incidents like this, our political environment is out of control and it needs to be pulled back into stability.

And who is supposed to determine which of these "people" must cease exercising their First Amendment right to free political speech?

[cinyc]

Again, the very point of all of this is very easy to understand. Rather or not anyone's rhetoric sparked the shooting, there are people who still need to stop using rhetoric that can incite trouble. We don't need anymore incidents like this, our political environment is out of control and it needs to be pulled back into stability.

And who is supposed to determine which of these "people" must cease exercising their First Amendment right to free political speech?

Ever heard of self-moderation? It's not that hard and some people need to practice it.

Who are these people who need to practice self-moderation, and why are they undoubtedly on the other side of the political aisle from you?  And what do you propose to do to those who do not self-moderate to your standards?  After all, you say they NEED to practice it - even though there is absolutely zero evidence that supposedly heightened political rhetoric had anything to do with the Arizona shooting.

[cinyc]

Who are these people who need to practice self-moderation

They are people who advocate the assassination of elected officials as a solution for policy disputes. I don't care what their policy views are. This is a ground game rule of democracy. It is the action of saying "shoot people who don't pass laws we like", not the content of the laws or the identity of the speaker.

Do you believe that expressing this view is an integral part of a certain set of policy views? I sure as hell don't. I think it's a tactic used by a few careless people and it does no political perspective any harm to self-moderate and choose not to use it. The same way it is good to self-moderate and not to give out the home addresses of Goldman Sachs executives and tell people it would be nice if they went out there "armed and dangerous" and sought "second amendment remedies" to the harm those rich bastards have done to the ordinary American. See, it works both ways. Cinyc, how would you feel if Obama, Dick Blumenthal, etc. were going on national tv and saying "This is Lloyd Blankfein's house. 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Greenwich, Connecticut. Mr. Blankfein is blocking reforms we need to prevent Wall Street from stealing your money. Now, I would never hurt him myself, but maybe it would be good for the country if people went out there and showed him exactly why he should work with us instead of against us..."

No public official ever said this is where Gabrielle Giffords lives or is going to hold a meet and greet with the public.  Now, I'd never hurt her myself, but maybe it would be good if someone hurt her.  Not one.  

And people did publish the names and addresses of bankers during the height of the banking crisis.  Leftist groups protested in front of some of their homes.  It is what it is, and by itself, perfectly legal.  I'd hate to live in a country where it isn't.

True specific death threats directly made to that person may be illegal.  Rhetoric about using Second Amendment remedies has been around about as long as the Second Amendment itself.  It is just that - rhetoric.  Words don't kill people.  Remember Jefferson's famous tree of liberty quote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

[cinyc]

I strongly disagree with the notion that just because Jefferson said we should start shooting each other every 150 years, we should. It's also strange that someone who has spent the entire thread vehemently denying any association with incitement to violence would post that quote.

I did not quote Jefferson for the truth or falsity of his statement.  I quoted it to show, once again, that this supposed hateful rhetoric regarding the Second Amendment has been around for centuries.
 

Cinyc,

I've made my point several times now. You can keep redefining the issue to say, well, they said we should shoot representatives, but they didn't actually say "go here at this time," and a Democrat said blah blah here, so it's not the same. I don't care, I think telling people to go shoot representatives if they don't like how they vote is unacceptable, and wherever you move the goalposts to after that is irrelevant.

And nobody actually said that, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it a good thing for candidates to call for assassinations?  Again, no major party candidate that I know have called for assassinations of specific individuals.  And whether someone who calls for assassinations generally is fit for public office is up to the voters to decide.  Not something that "must" be banned or self-censored by politically correct fiat because some people don't think it's nice.

My main problem with Krugman and the red avatars complaining about the supposed heated "hateful" political rhetoric is simple.   If heated rhetoric is a sin, you can't ignore the rhetoric on your side.  You can't ignore that as a candidate, your own President told his supporters to get in the faces of those with whom he disagreed.  You can't ignore that while in office, your own President has likened the opposition to terrorists.  You can't mention Sarah Palin's graphic, but ignore that your own prominent bloggers have also "targeted" and put a "bulls eye" on Giffords' seat due to her perceived political misdeeds.  And can't you ignore that one of your own candidates put crosshairs in an ad against an Arizona Republican congressman.  

With a few exceptions, though, it's always that one-sided.  Republicans evil and need to shut up because we don't like what some of them say.  Democrats good and can say whatever they want because they are good and right.   But political rhetoric is political rhetoric.  It is constitutionally protected speech.

[cinyc]

Why is it a good thing for candidates to call for assassinations?  Again, no major party candidate that I know have called for assassinations of specific individuals.

It doesn't have to be specific individuals to be dangerous. Naming the Democratic members of Congress as people to be shot reduces it to a few hundred, of which only a few will be convenient to a given shooter. Not that it matters, the only reason you're saying "specific individuals" is so you can define some realm of bad behavior outside of what Republicans have done, not based on whether it's more or less dangerous. And if we find a Republican who said "we should kill Jane Goldberg because she voted [y]," and plenty of activists have done in the last two years as they've been riled up by their leaders, you'll just move the goal posts again.

I'm not here to convince you or keystone phil because neither of you is arguing in good faith or seeking an exchange of views. You're seeking maximum defense of your team, whether plausible or not, and will fight to the end for that. I'm here to think through my beliefs and express them in arguments, have them tested, explore what I think, and put forward the best conclusion I can. I know you well enough to know that at the end of the day, you're never going to acknowledge anything that causes potential disadvantage to your party and beliefs. That's fine! What you think and believe, doesn't matter to me. Truth and intellectual honesty do. To the extent that you engage with those topics or give me a chance to, I argue with you. But I don't really care if you choose to stay within your little fortress at the end of the day, any more than I care if CARLHAYDEN ever changes his views in response to posts responding to him.

And I know you well enough at the end of the day that you are never going to acknowledge anything that causes potential disadvantage to your party.  It is your party's interest to pretend that this shooting was due to a supposedly toxic political environment even though there is absolutely zero evidence that this shooter was any more influenced by the supposedly hateful political rhetoric of the day it than John Hinckley was when he shot President Reagan in the 1980s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This line of argument, half debunked straw-man ("banned"?), has already been countered several times in this thread. We have a dying or crippled congresswoman lying in a coma, a 9-year-old girl is dead. You translate this to "I don't think it's nice." Well, cinyc, whatever you want to believe, you're welcome to. I'm just very, very grateful that the majority in this country doesn't share your views about subordinating human lives and morality to a belief that you must defend whatever members of your party say and do, must be defended on the Internet with maximum sarcasm and refusal to acknowledge opposing views.[/quote]

I am not only defending what members of my party say.  I am also defending the right of what members of your party, the Green Party and any other party say to say it, short of advocating violence against a particular individual.  If you actually knew me well enough, you'd know that the right to maximum political speech is a very important issue to me, that I've decried McCain-Feingold for infringing on it, and am generally against bans on speech.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, whatever examples I or Keystone Phil or anyone else with a blue avatar posts will always be weak.   Democrats can do no wrong.  A sitting Pennsylvania congressman calling for a Republican gubernatorial candidate to be shot is just fine because he didn't mean it literally and the guy was supposedly a thief, anyway.  But a graphic of targets over states is hateful because Sarah Palin did it and she really wants to kill people.  Sure.

Your "vast imbalance in political violence" obviously doesn't include the assassination attempts on Presidents Reagan or Ford, both Republicans.  

I could go on, but there really is no sense.  I guess we just have to agree to disagree.