or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An End to Violent Rhetoric (but IOKIYAD)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An End to Violent Rhetoric (but IOKIYAD)

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
In his post-Giffords shooting speech, Obama called for an end to violent rhetoric. Some highlights:

Quote:
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Quote:
But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

Quote:
And so deserving of our good example. If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.

The mainstream media constantly ran with the Palin "target map" meme, ignoring that many Democrats used the same kind of visuals and strategies. The Tea Party was assailed for being racist, violent and thuggish. The Right pointed out examples of liberals using violent rhetoric. And the debate got sucked into the media echo chamber and was drowned out in it.

But in the last week, Democrats and liberals in general have apparently either forgotten "our" promise to stop using violent and extreme rhetoric, or just said "screw it...we've got nothing else." In just this past week, there have three almost unbelievable examples of extremism:

1. Maxine Waters says that "the Tea Party can go straight to Hell."

2. Obama is preceded by James P. Hoffa at a taxpayer funded event in Detroit.
Quote:
We gotta keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And, you know, there's only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They got a war. They got a war with us, and there's only gonna be one winner. It's gonna be the workers of Michigan and America. We're gonna win that war. President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. And, President Obama, we want one thing: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what we're going to tell him. He gonna be -- and when he sees what we're doing here, he will be inspired. But he needs help, and, you know what? Everybody here's gotta vote. If we go back and we keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son-of-a-bitches out.

Obama then spoke. The White House has not refuted the comments.

3. A video game has been released allowing players to slaughter Tea Party members, FNC personalties, etc.


Now, imagine for a moment that Sarah Palin said "we need to take this SOB out" when referring to Obama, or any Democrat. Imagine if Paul Ryan said the thought Democrats can go "straight to Hell." Imagine if a video game was developed allowing one to kill Obama, Pelosi, and George Stephanopoulos. There would be mass outrage. Resignations! Investigations! Maybe even criminal charges!

The double standard is worse than I've ever seen. Let the defense of the indefensible begin.....
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In his post-Giffords shooting speech, Obama called for an end to violent rhetoric. Some highlights:

The mainstream media constantly ran with the Palin "target map" meme, ignoring that many Democrats used the same kind of visuals and strategies. The Tea Party was assailed for being racist, violent and thuggish. The Right pointed out examples of liberals using violent rhetoric. And the debate got sucked into the media echo chamber and was drowned out in it.

But in the last week, Democrats and liberals in general have apparently either forgotten "our" promise to stop using violent and extreme rhetoric. In just this past week, there have three almost unbelievable examples of extremism:

1. Maxine Waters says that "the Tea Party can go straight to Hell."

2. Obama is preceded by James P. Hoffa at a taxpayer funded event in Detroit.

Obama then spoke. The White House has not refuted the comments.

3. A video game has been released allowing players to slaughter Tea Party members, FNC personalties, etc.

Now, imagine for a moment that Sarah Palin said "we need to take this SOB out" when referring to Obama, or any Democrat. Imagine if Paul Ryan said the thought Democrats can go "straight to Hell." Imagine if a video game was developed allowing one to kill Obama, Pelosi, and George Stephanopoulos. There would be mass outrage. Resignations! Investigations! Maybe even criminal charges!

The double standard is worse than I've ever seen. Let the defense of the indefensible begin.....

Got it, (But It's OK if You Are Democrat) Took me a minute...

The first 2 don't bother me too much. The rank hypocrisy has been out there for a long time. But the final game suggesting killing of a specific political party. That is just wrong.

OMG!!! I just looked at who the zombies are in the game. Sarah Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, Hannity, Beck... It goes on and on. They don't even try to make it generic in any way. They are literally targeting real living people for death. And asking you to kill them. There can be no defense for this...

http://starvingeyes.com/v8/ is the company that made it and they are describing it as a game for online viral campaigns. They were paid to do this by some group.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #3 of 22
1 is stupid because hell isn't real.
2 is borderline but only because of the last part of the comment.
3 is terrible.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 22
I think we all can agree that the video game is deplorable. So obviously, your initial premise (that "it's okay") is flawed. But don't let that stop you.
post #5 of 22
SDW posted this quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We gotta keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And, you know, there's only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They got a war. They got a war with us, and there's only gonna be one winner. It's gonna be the workers of Michigan and America. We're gonna win that war. President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. And, President Obama, we want one thing: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what we're going to tell him. He gonna be -- and when he sees what we're doing here, he will be inspired. But he needs help, and, you know what? Everybody here's gotta vote. If we go back and we keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son-of-a-bitches out.

BR replies with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

2 is borderline but only because of the last part of the comment.

Here's BR from the Gifford Shooting thread (criticizing Palin):

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We need to remove the violent rhetoric from our political debates. Nobody should be bringing guns to rallies. Nobody should be talking about "second amendment solutions." Nobody should be putting gun sights on maps of opposing candidates. Nobody who did the previous should be telling her supporters to RELOAD.

Whether this shooter was motivated by the above or not, it doesn't actually matter. Our political discourse in this country has become far, far too violent and aggressive.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #6 of 22
The word "war" has sort of lost it's violent impact because we declare war on everything in this country. War on drugs. War on poverty. War on crime. The fake, Fox-News-contrived "war" on christmas. Marching is innocuous as well. It's the last part where he says "let's take these sons-of-bitches-out" where he crosses the line.

I'm quite internally consistent here. Bugger off, Frank.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The word "war" has sort of lost it's violent impact because we declare war on everything in this country. War on drugs. War on poverty. War on crime. The fake, Fox-News-contrived "war" on christmas. Marching is innocuous as well. It's the last part where he says "let's take these sons-of-bitches-out" where he crosses the line.

I'm quite internally consistent here. Bugger off, Frank.

Don't you think that the use of a word in the context of what the speaker is saying makes it mean more than what it otherwise would be? I still think number 2 is overblown but in light of other recent complaints about crosshairs and such, it should fail the violent rhetoric test in spades for you. \
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #8 of 22
More on the Game:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-daniel-foster

Quote:
UPDATE: MRCtv got comment from Jason Oda, head of StarvingEyes, the company that created the game. Oda called it “just a personal project” and said he is “not worried about it effecting business.”

Nice, just a personal project... \

And another link:

http://mrctv.org/blog/video-game-all...d-bill-oreilly
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In his post-Giffords shooting speech, Obama called for an end to violent rhetoric. Some highlights:







The mainstream media constantly ran with the Palin "target map" meme, ignoring that many Democrats used the same kind of visuals and strategies. The Tea Party was assailed for being racist, violent and thuggish. The Right pointed out examples of liberals using violent rhetoric. And the debate got sucked into the media echo chamber and was drowned out in it.

But in the last week, Democrats and liberals in general have apparently either forgotten "our" promise to stop using violent and extreme rhetoric. In just this past week, there have three almost unbelievable examples of extremism:

1. Maxine Waters says that "the Tea Party can go straight to Hell."

2. Obama is preceded by James P. Hoffa at a taxpayer funded event in Detroit.

Obama then spoke. The White House has not refuted the comments.

3. A video game has been released allowing players to slaughter Tea Party members, FNC personalties, etc.


Now, imagine for a moment that Sarah Palin said "we need to take this SOB out" when referring to Obama, or any Democrat. Imagine if Paul Ryan said the thought Democrats can go "straight to Hell." Imagine if a video game was developed allowing one to kill Obama, Pelosi, and George Stephanopoulos. There would be mass outrage. Resignations! Investigations! Maybe even criminal charges!

The double standard is worse than I've ever seen. Let the defense of the indefensible begin.....

It is about time all these politicians grow up and start to act mature.Enough is enough!
post #10 of 22
Obama conflates differences in fiscal policy with "hold a gun to the head" of americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMol7h2CRmA
The great orator
post #11 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

1 is stupid because hell isn't real.
2 is borderline but only because of the last part of the comment.
3 is terrible.

1) If I say "BR should be killed with a phaser from Star Trek," is that just stupid, or would you focus on the fact someone said they want you dead?

2) No, not only because of the last part of the comment. War. Fight. And then, "take these SOBs out." Borderline?

3)It's worse than terrible.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obama conflates differences in fiscal policy with "hold a gun to the head" of americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMol7h2CRmA
The great orator

We've been through this already.

With the (figurative) crosshairs, Palin was suggesting that we SHOULD point a gun at certain people's heads.
Obama was saying that we should NEVER point a gun at people's heads, such as Republican tactics are (figuratively) doing.

Using guns or targets figuratively or not, one says we SHOULD point guns. One says we SHOULDN'T.

Yeah, it's the same fucking thing. Right.
post #13 of 22
I either want SDW to tell me exactly which Democrats think the game is okay, or I would expect him to admit he was wrong on this one.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We've been through this already.

With the (figurative) crosshairs, Palin was suggesting that we SHOULD point a gun at certain people's heads.
Obama was saying that we should NEVER point a gun at people's heads, such as Republican tactics are (figuratively) doing.

Using guns or targets figuratively or not, one says we SHOULD point guns. One says we SHOULDN'T.

Yeah, it's the same fucking thing. Right.

You don't ever stop being obtuse do you?
post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I either want SDW to tell me exactly which Democrats think the game is okay, or I would expect him to admit he was wrong on this one.

I want tonton to acknowledge that if this type of game was even TALKED ABOUT on the other side there would be screaming, crying, condemnation and maybe even criminal charges.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

With the (figurative) crosshairs, Palin was suggesting that we SHOULD point a gun at certain people's heads.

No, you fully well know that she wasn't.

She was suggesting that those people be targeted for replacement by democratic means.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We've been through this already.

With the (figurative) crosshairs, Palin was suggesting that we SHOULD point a gun at certain people's heads.
Obama was saying that we should NEVER point a gun at people's heads, such as Republican tactics are (figuratively) doing.

Using guns or targets figuratively or not, one says we SHOULD point guns. One says we SHOULDN'T.

Yeah, it's the same fucking thing. Right.

Umm, the crosshairs were pointing at a MAP. Not a head. You are inferring something that is not there. So even if it were a gun there is no head there.

However, you are 100% non-partisan on this and there is no way that your inference is somehow slanted by your personal views right?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

No, you fully well know that she wasn't.

She was suggesting that those people be targeted for replacement by democratic means.

^^ THIS ^^ Exactly.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #19 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

^^ THIS ^^ Exactly.

Plus 1
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

No, you fully well know that she wasn't.

She was suggesting that those people be targeted for replacement by democratic means.

There are several kinds of crosshairs or targets she could have chosen that do NOT happen to be gun sights.

And Frank, do you have a problem with Obama's language with regard to "pointing a gun"?

If so, how on Earth can you see one of these things as figurative and not the other?

And FJ, do you even know what the meaning of "being obtuse" is? I'm being 100% clear on this. Obama was saying pointing guns is a bad thing. Palin was saying putting targets on people is a good thing. I'm perfectly fine with the assertion that both were being figurative. But what I'm saying is not obtuse. It's sick that you can't see the difference. The difference is that Dirty Harry talk is okay to you. I prefer Gandhi, who very likely could have used the "gun at the head" analogy.
post #21 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There are several kinds of crosshairs or targets she could have chosen that do NOT happen to be gun sights.

Oh come on Tonton. Palin's from Alaska and part of her meme is her hunting skills and familiarity with guns.
Taking this out of context is sop for liberals, and you guys are great at fake outrage. You know perfectly well the spirit in which the conversation was taking place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And Frank, do you have a problem with Obama's language with regard to "pointing a gun"?

I understood his point. But for someone who practically owns talking down to the God and Guns crowd and calling for more civility in public discourse, he should probably have chosen his words more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If so, how on Earth can you see one of these things as figurative and not the other?

They were both figurative. Only one side is pretending they weren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm being 100% clear on this. Obama was saying pointing guns is a bad thing. Palin was saying putting targets on people is a good thing.

Who's being obtuse here? Palin was saying the same thing many lefties call for. That is, gaining a majority by targeting the members of the other side for defeat.

And as Noah points out above, the targets were put on places, not people. Fake outrage doesn't change that fact.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

They were both figurative. Only one side is pretending they weren't.

Really? Which side would that be? The more you say, the more you make it clear that you know absoutely nothing about "the other side".

What those criticizing the use of violent rhetoric are doing (we're not talking 'sides' here) is saying that although it is figurative, it is still inappropriate.

Let's say someone stupid does take Palin's map literally. What's the worst that can happen? Are you saying that there are absolutely no stupid people in the world?

Now let's say someone stupid takes Obama's words literally. What's the worst that can happen?

And you still claim you can't see the difference?

That's the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, once again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An End to Violent Rhetoric (but IOKIYAD)