Active Users:205 Time:20/05/2024 05:44:44 AM
Sounds like our only disagreement is over where to strike the balance. Joel Send a noteboard - 15/09/2011 12:36:50 PM
Yet I believe most of the cases people have highlighted of late don't pass the test. Now I've got no problem on calling people out for poor phrasing and reminding them to pick their words with care, but as I've said, I feel there must be a fairly tangible case that the person meant to incite it, mens rea and all. Your example, where the person whispers afterward 'metaphorically' would indeed be sufficient for me, at least for conviction in the court of public opinion, because it can be demonstrated pretty clearly that they did have an intent for the words to have that effect. "DRINK DUFF... responsibly" if you remember the reference, is a different story from someone getting a bit overenthusiastic and saying "Now let's get out there and kick some GOP/Dem ass!" or "We're gonna absolutely kill them." if someone is pretty clearly - to a reasonable person - talking about ballots. Perry should have been a lot more careful but I simply can't see his comments as any sort of attempt to encourage violence, though I do rather wish he'd ratchet back on Texas Stereotype behavior.

No, if I believe there's any sort of decent indication the person really was attempting to stir up trouble of that sort I'm all for hitting them hard, and I've got zero problems telling someone who didn't mean to do it but did it that they need to learn more caution and slapping them down hard if they do a lot of repeat performances, but I do think you set the standard a touch to high. Also I didn't mean to imply you hated Perry or Hoffa, I was merely talking in general terms about people who apply situational ethics and partisan bias with a very free hand when setting their standards. I've no issue with trying to set a more civil tone but I also can't condemn someone for their choice of words, civil or not, if I don't believe they either had intent to incite violence or really went outside the safe zone either repeatedly or with little legit cause for a mistake.

And I won't pretend I'm not a little hypersensitive about the issue given recent events (given what's happened since then it's probably a very good thing for Adam that I DIDN'T inform Norwegian authorities about his statement he was coming here to kill me for my beliefs.... ) Part of what angers me is politicians who respond to political violence with what amounts to no more than "that's too bad, but so what?" and seem to take it as personal challenge to use even more violent rhetoric. On the other hand, making people angry isn't a crime, and shouldn't be. Provoking violent anger, however, does seem to fall within the definition of reckless endangerment, whether intentional or not; just because someone is too stupid to REALIZE it's dangerous to text while driving doesn't absolve them of guilt or preclude prosecution for it. We probably can't establish a comprehensive standard, draw a line to easily identify what approaches, skirts and crosses it, but that's why we have juries.

The court of public opinion is a much easier matter; to recycle a favorite reference to your source, "just don't look, just don't look." To be clear, I'm not saying ignore it and it will go away, but when people negligently rather than deliberately provoke violence we should restrict our attention to calling them on and condemning it, then politically ostracize them as beneath our contempt, let alone support. A slip of the tongue is one thing; everyone makes mistakes and mispeaks, but a pattern of such behavior represents (at least) an indefensible lack of judgement in a would be leader.

Unfortunately, one of the things that appears to have changed in modern American politics is that calling a politician on shameful language is dismissed as a purely partisan opposition attack, and things that would have resulted in red faced public apologies a generation ago now result in brazen defiance. If tomorrows papers criticize me calling my opponent a puppy rapist that's just more typical "gotcha" politics from the MSM, so I should stand by my puppy rapist accusation and not give in to media tyranny from Them. What alarms me is that that kind of attitude isn't shunned, but instead increasingly supported. Even Ron Paul (no friend of the Fed or stranger to populism) said Perry went too far in calling Bernanke a traitor, but the comment still did nothing to slow Perry meteoric rise in the polls; if anything it HELPED--just as he intended. He got the reward he sought at no cost, and as long as that's how these things go he'll have plenty of company. I didn't need Hoffas recent comments to tell me he and his organization are a blot on the record of organized labor, that, particularly in light of things like what happened to his father, they justifiably frighten the general public, but it's a fine argument for rescinding the great political power with which he clearly can't be trusted.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out" - 05/09/2011 07:42:59 PM 793 Views
What a douchbag *NM* - 05/09/2011 08:37:00 PM 164 Views
Violent rhetoric from the teamsters is not surprising - 05/09/2011 09:27:54 PM 566 Views
I was sans internet after the 1st. - 12/09/2011 10:32:55 PM 432 Views
Fair enough - 12/09/2011 11:03:10 PM 461 Views
Re: Fair enough - 13/09/2011 12:47:19 AM 450 Views
No disagreement in principle - 13/09/2011 03:55:19 AM 557 Views
Sounds like our only disagreement is over where to strike the balance. - 15/09/2011 12:36:50 PM 384 Views
No, union leaders = criminals, union leaders = thugs. - 05/09/2011 09:43:25 PM 493 Views
Yeah, cause violent rhetoric works so well with Liberal Ideology. - 05/09/2011 10:54:11 PM 452 Views
of course it does you just live in denial *NM* - 06/09/2011 01:39:03 AM 245 Views
Shows what you know. I've never even BEEN to Egypt. *NM* - 06/09/2011 03:15:17 PM 164 Views
So nobody at all bothered to look for an unedited version of the speech? Really? - 08/09/2011 12:04:50 AM 531 Views
I did, but it's not really pertinent to most of our comments - 08/09/2011 04:02:42 AM 369 Views
I am tired of anyone getting their panties in a bunch on purpose because they choose to interpret - 09/09/2011 01:43:14 AM 686 Views
+1 *NM* - 12/09/2011 11:30:52 PM 269 Views
You're preaching to the choir - 12/09/2011 11:46:08 PM 485 Views
For me that video changes nothing; his rhetorical imagery was unacceptably violent. - 12/09/2011 10:28:00 PM 450 Views
I don't think that we can afford to watch every single little thing we say and obliterate any - 13/09/2011 12:56:34 AM 412 Views
Terms from fighting probably can't be ignored; terms from war can be. - 13/09/2011 02:07:17 AM 528 Views
get your facts straight - 13/09/2011 03:39:29 AM 398 Views
I did: "Addressing a political rally in Iowa on Monday... - 13/09/2011 04:26:57 AM 607 Views

Reply to Message