Politicizing the AZ massacre

And why would anyone care about that or object, except for the reasonable conclusion that saying things that promote violence leads to violence? Why would anyone care that Islam is a religion that "promotes violence" except for the reasonable conclusion that speech that promotes violence results in violence?Oni, could I truthfully market a product as "promoting hair growth" unless people actually grew hair while using it? Do you just not understand what the word "promotes" means? It has a few definitions; clearly you're getting confused. People don't say "promotes violence" to suggest that violence is being "advanced in rank", as in "promoted to Brigadier General", or "promotes violence" as in "present merchandise for buyer acceptance", as in "Hi, I'm here to promote Bacardi Spirits"; they mean "promotes violence" as in "to help bring into being", as in "Rogaine promotes hair growth."Words - they mean things. One of the things you do when your back is against the wall is pretend that they don't. And what possible reason could they have for disapproval except the reasonable conclusion that disseminating that particular idea would contribute to violence?You're asserting that there's no such thing as a "speech act"; that actions and ideas are inherently and unbrigably separate. But that's clearly nonsense - if advertising can promote the purchase of soap, political speech can certainly promote signing on to the use of political violence - especially when that speech advocates political violence, as Sharon Angle did when she invoked "Second Amendment remedies." And you could just say "sorry, I meant 'shot' instead of 'kill', and misspoke. Sorry for my error." You know, instead of what you're doing now, which is pretending like you're incapable of error and spewing misogynistic insults.Like I said this will drag on just as long as you insist on lying. It's a Republican government when Republicans are in charge. It's a Democratic government when Democrats run it.How are you not following this, Oni? Yeah, and he didn't shoot her then, did he? He didn't shoot anyone, or indeed engage in any kind of politicized violence at all, until national mainstream conservatives started advocating political violence.In fact there's kind of a pattern of that - the Philadelphia shooter had been listening to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for years, but never picked up a gun and shot anybody until national conservative voices started using murder speech. The ACLU would-be shooter never picked up a gun with the intent to shoot anybody until national conservative voices started using murder speech. Hundreds of people who had disagreements with their members of Congress never actually picked up the phone and started telling Congressmen and women that they wanted to assassinate them until - coincidentally? - national conservative voices started using murder speech.Funny, though, I guess that's all a complete coincidence. If you ran an advertising agency, you might try to justify your fees to your clients by trying to prove your advertising was effective. That is - you would want to be able to prove to your clients that your advertising promoted the purchase of their products. For instance, you would try to show that, in the markets and time periods where your ads appeared in popular magazines and on television, the purchase of the advertised product - say, Irish Spring soap - increased by 6%. Everyone would understand that to be a compelling case that you were an effective advertiser who could make money for his clients by producing ads that influenced people to purchase more of their products.What would be utterly irrelevant to that case would be any proof that any of the people who actually bought the soap actually saw the ads - how would you even prove it? Even if they watched the programs where the commercials appeared, they might have left the room, been in the bathroom, maybe just not even paying attention. Even if they could be shown to be subscribers to the magazines where your soap ads appeared, maybe they didn't even read those pages. And, of course, many people are going to have seen your ads without subscribing to the magazine or watching the program where the commercial appeared, because in the modern era we're suffused with mass media. It's everywhere you go. Maybe they saw the commercial in a bar. Maybe they read the magazine at the dentist.Or maybe they never saw any of your advertising at all, and the reason they started buying Irish Spring soap is because all their friends, who do consume your various forms of advertising, started doing it. It's called "word of mouth".All of that is an explanation for how people can be influenced by your advertising without any proof of a direct causal chain between your ad and their soap purchases. Despite an increase of thousands of units purchased in these specific markets, there's not going to be any case where even a single person can be found who bought Irish Spring soap as a result of your advertising.But corporations continue to spend billions on it every year. Because it works! Because speech matters. Because advocacy works. Because it's possible to influence millions of people in entirely predictable ways as a result of mass media. If you were defending ad expenditures, the mere correlation between a mass change in behavior and the presence of advertising would be sufficient. And, similarly, it's sufficient in this case. What political groups Jared Loughner, specifically, was involved with, and what politicians he esteemed and paid attention to, is an utter irrelevancy. It's no more relevant than it would be relevant whether or not the people you influenced with your advertising also had other brands of soap in their homes. Jared Loughner's specific political activities are a complete red herring. Conservative murder speech created the environment that fostered this crime, just as it's fostered hundreds of other crimes since 2008. The fact that none of those crimes are the result of a direct causal chain from Sarah Palin's mouth to the bullets coming out of a gun? Utterly irrelevant.

Well, except that here in the US, it is. Obviously it's different in the Netherlands, but so what?

That doesn't answer my question. Why would people object to speech that "promotes violence" unless what they objected to what the increased violence that happened as a result?If the phrase "promotes violence" isn't meant to refer to the effect whereby violence is increased, there's no reason for anyone to find the promotion of violence any more objectionable than the promotion of flossing or dandruff shampoo. Yes. But can I market it by saying "promotes penis growth"? Not truthfully, unless it actually increases the size of your penis. We're not talking about marketing; we're talking about what people mean when they say "promotes violence." And what they mean is "causes an increase in violence", just as "promotes penis growth" means "causes an increase in the size of the penis." Yes, you're right. Similarly, telling your supporters that if they don't like the outcome of an election they should seek "Second Amendment remedies" is an idea that would contribute to violence. Having your supporters fire an automatic firearm at a picture of your campaign opponent is an idea that would contribute to violence. Telling your supporters to "reload" in the face of political defeat is an idea that would contribute to violence. Calling a obstetrician "Tiller the Killer" and demanding, on national TV, that he be killed to save unborn children is an idea that would contribute to violence.How do I know that? Why, because of all the violence that these speech acts contributed to. And none of us are saying there's a direct legal link between Loughner and Palin. Indeed there's absolutely no link of any kind.That's utterly irrelevant to the question of whether conservative murder speech, such as that said by Palin, has contributed to an environment of increased political violence from the right. What kind of proof? Hitler spoke about killing Jews to the people of Germany; then, the people of Germany embarked on an enormous program to exterminate Jews. But what's the proof the two are related? You don't have any evidence that every single concentration camp guard ever even heard Hitler speak, right? Sure I did. I've given you every chance. Every single post you write to me is a chance for you to say "sorry, I misspoke" but instead you've insisted that you're incapable of error, and that somehow I'm the Biggest Douche in the Universe because I wasn't able to read your mind, read the signs, or read anything but the very words you wrote in the text box and hit "submit reply."There's nothing I'm doing, Oni, that is preventing you from admitting you made a mistake. The only obstacle to that is yourself, and your stubborn refusal to countenance the fact that you're a human being who occasionally makes errors. Just as soon as you're prepared to acknowledge your mistake, and stop pretending like I'm the one who has a problem because you say things that aren't true, we can move on. But we're not going to "drop it" until you stop telling lies. You be nice. I'm not the one spewing misogynistic insults to avoid admitting error. I'm prepared to be just as polite as you're prepared to act. All you have to do is stop lying. I'm not talking about the system of government, Oni, which obviously remains the same regardless of what party is in charge. I'm not even talking about liberals or conservatives. I'm talking about Republicans and Democrats. You know, the two-party system? When Republicans run the government that's described as "the Republican government." When Democrats run it it's described as "the Democratic government." That's a different phrase than "Democratic government", which means "government organized as a democracy."Look, I'm sorry that we have a party called "The Democratic Party", it really does make talking about the government a little confusing. I'm not referring to the system of government we have, I'm talking about the government that we have right now. And so was Loughner. No, it's not. Law enforcement has not investigated the claims I'm making at all; they've investigated the claim of a connection between Palin and Loughner.But there never was such a connection nor the claim of such a connection. They've chased a red herring, and you're repeating it. The claim I'm making - Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence - has been investigated by the Department of Homeland Security and found to be true, such that they issued a warning about it back in April of 2009. But again - neither would there be hard evidence that soap advertising gets people to buy soap, by this standard. That's simply not the applicable standard to apply when we're talking about speech fostering an environment that results in an increase in certain kinds of behavior. That's not a matter of opinion; it's just something for which you have to rely on another type of evidence besides a clear, forensic causal chain between any individual actor and any specific act of speech. Loughner as an individual is irrelevant; the environment that fostered the act of trying to assassinate Rep. Giffords is what is relevant. If it hadn't been Loughner at the trigger and Giffords in his sights, it would have been some other shooter, some other victims, some other street corner, on some other day. Loughner's own politics have absolutely zero relevance, here.

Ok, but examples of it from the Netherlands - which is a whole different country, perhaps you're aware - aren't evidence for that view.

Right, and in the US, that's true. I don't understand how an example of dangerous left-wing rhetoric in the Netherlands disproves that. Can you elaborate?

Right. Here in the US, it is. I don't see how examples from the Netherlands could possibly be relevant to that point. They don't even speak the same language in the Netherlands. But both sides don't have dangerous rhetoric. The left in the Netherlands and the left in the US are two different sides.

For the most part, murder and assassination rhetoric by leading political figures is a phenomenon limited to the right here in the US, yes. Nobody shouts "kill him!" at an Obama rally. Democrats don't invite supporters to fire automatic weapons at pictures of their opponents.The examples provided thus far by conservatives to rebut that point have been flimsy, to say the least. Dart boards aren't crosshairs. "Bringing a gun to a knifefight" is quoting The Untouchables, not inviting people to actually bring guns anywhere. It's the conservatives that ask their supporters to come to rallies with guns.

Then they don't promote violence. If they don't actually lead to any violence, there's no such thing as a "movie or TV show that promotes violence." Well, no, I couldn't. It's against the law to make false claims of medical efficacy in advertising. And what do you mean, "who cares about truthfully"? I care, that's why I specified it in my example. I believe it actually matters what words mean. You seem to think that it doesn't matter at all; that you can use "promotes" to mean anything at all, or even nothing at all. Well, no. Words mean things. Language that doesn't influence behavior can't promote behavior, because that's what "promote" means. You're just engaged in a massive effort to deny that words have any intelligible meaning whatsoever. Well, but it does increase violence, that's how we know that Islam can be used to promote violence. That's what it means to "promote." Words mean things. But that's unintelligible nonsense. That's precisely what it means to "promote."This is just another example of how you'd prefer to deny the plain English meaning of words rather than admit error. What was your proof that they didn't? Be specific. I can't read your mind, Oni. I can only know what you know based on what you choose to reveal. Only your words can dictate how much knowledge of events you appear to have. If you chose the wrong words and thus gave the wrong impression, that's on you, and it's your responsibility to be mature and admit error - not to constantly strike this "woe is me" pose where you pretend that it's everyone's fault but your own that they couldn't read your mind and know what you meant.You misspoke. Cop to it, apologize for the lack of clarity, and we can move on. But we'll continue to go over it until you stop lying about what actually happened here. Well, for the most part. The judiciary is still pretty heavily Republican, and Republicans now have a majority in the House of Representatives. The evidence is that a congresswoman was targeted for assassination after an election where Republicans targeted her with assassination rhetoric in print ads, TV and radio media, and at campaign appearances where supporters were invited to fire at a picture of her with an automatic weapon.If you were wondering if your soap ads got people to buy soap, it would be sufficient to observe that soap purchases increased after your ads aired. You wouldn't actually have to find someone who bought soap because of your ad - such a person might not even exist. The people who did go out and buy soap may not have even seen a single one of your ads - nevertheless, your ads were responsible for an increase in soap purchases. I'm using the shooting that happened in Tuscon. That's my evidence that Republican murder speech contributed to an environment of violence that makes these sorts of events highly predictable. How do I know they've become predictable? Rep. Giffords herself predicted it.

I don't see prominent liberals, media commentators, or professional Democrats in any of those images. In fact I don't see any indication that the people in those images are liberals at all. And who was that gentleman? A prominent liberal? A notorious blogger? A professional member of the liberal media? A Democratic politician? No? Not any of those?Then who gives a fuck what he said? Who even paid attention to it, besides aggrieved conservatives desperate to draw a false equivalence between rhetoric from the right and from the left? I think you're the one who is biased, such that you can't tell the difference in significance between Sarah Palin and some random war protester.

Either you're not understanding the point being made or you're dishonestly equivocating on the term "promote", which means both "to present for buyer acceptance though advertising or publicity" and "to help bring into being; to contribute to the growth or prosperty of".People don't say "promotes violence" like they say "promote a band". Speech that is described as "promotes violence" is understood to be accused of actually causing an increase in violence; that's why people object to it. If speech that "promoted violence" had no effect on violence, there would be nothing objectionable about it.The word "promote" in "promotes violence" means "to contribute to the growth of", not "to present for buyer acceptance through advertising or publicity." See, here's where you're conflating two definitions, again. I'm not talking about products that are promoted, I'm talking about products that promote.Do you understand the difference? (This is an important question and your next reply to me should answer it, please.) All of your difficulties in this discussion are based on the fact that you don't appear to understand the difference between "contribute to the growth of" and "present for buyer acceptance", which are two very different definitions of the word "promote." You're absolutely right. Similarly, we should recognize that the increase in right-wing violence directed against Democrats, minorities, and government employees is a function of unbalanced, violent people doing violent things and the creation of an rhetorical environment where violence is repeatedly invoked and approved of against the political enemies of the right-wing. Well, it's not much of an apology but it's roughly the level of maturity you usually evince. Why not simply admit to your mistake and apologize for how you've needlessly dragged this on? Companies regularly do this because there are few if any metrics to assess ad effectiveness beyond correlating ad penetration with aggregate purchasing. They can't get in your head, Oni; they can't know what ads you saw and why you bought what you bought.The standard of evidence you're demanding is unnecessary, which is good because it's impossible. I mean you yourself identified in the Hitler example that we can't tell which Nazis were oppressing Jews because they were incited to do so by Hitler, and which were doing so because Nazism provided an outlet for their own pre-existing antisemitism. But even so it's ridiculous to suggest that Hitler's anti-Jew oratory, which aired throughout Germany and the rest of Europe, didn't have an inciting effect on levels of violence against Jews. Even if we can't find a single individual who we can prove killed Jews just because Hitler said to. And you would answer that direct evidence was an impossibility, but the indirect evidence was sufficient to be convincing. Just as it is in this case. Oh, come on. We all know what she meant by "consequences" - she meant someone engaging in politically-motivated violence. To her grave misfortune she was proven absolutely correct. As, unfortunately, was I.

No, you've not show anything but examples of intemperate rhetoric from a fringe that even the far left disavows.Which mainstream conservatives have disavowed Rush Limbaugh, Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, and other mainstream conservative figures who have engaged in this type of murder speech?I mean so far your most significant example is Alan Hivisi, but Hivisi apologized for and retracted his statements. When did Sarah Palin apologize for putting a crosshairs on Giffords? (She did not; in fact she simply lied about having done so.) When did Sharon Angle apologize for inviting conservatives to reverse electoral outcomes with armed insurrection? Be specific.Do you just not understand the difference in significance between Sarah Palin, who your party advances as a credible candidate to be President of the United States, and a motley collection of college radicals?

"He's going to explode." That's the offending phrase? Not a reference to violence, a reference to temper. Bill Maher is a libertarian, not a leftist. Sandra Bernhard? There's not even a need to reply to that. If that's the case why can't you seem to find any of it? If "both sides do it" why is Sandra Bernhard the best you're able to muster? And if the left is just as bad, where was all the political violence during Bush's term? Where were the assassination attempts? Where were the bombings? Why did death threats against Congresspeople only rise in 2009, when Obama and the Democrats took office?Why are we finding bombs at Martin Luther King Jr. parades and not at Tea Parties? Why don't you see loaded AK-47's at the same rallies you saw all those supposed "kill Bush" signs?How does "both sides do it" explain the general right-wing tenor of the increase in violence? Why are the only domestic leftist terrorists you've ever heard of a group that was last heard from in the 60's and whose only victims were their own members?

Ok, but who are these people? Be specific. Which of them was nominated by the DNC to run for Vice-President of the United States of America?

Ok, but when are you going to start? Well, right. The people of Tuscon, for instance, didn't particularly appreciate how those on the right are starting to fight back. I bet Vernon Hunter didn't like it at all when right-winger Joseph Stack decided to "fight back."You're racking up bumper stickers, Coyote, and we're talking about body counts. And you think it's "worse on the left." You're truly blinded by your need to defend your own side.

I don't even see a person in that image. Who, precisely, is engaging in that speech? A car? Had enough of what? You've not presented even a single example of murder rhetoric from the professional left. You're certainly demonstrating the Gish Gallop. You've not attempted to defend even a single one of your examples.Where is the murder speech from Democrats as prominent as Sarah Palin? Be specific.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.