However, it's undeniable that the GOP has provided cover for nutcases like this, and arguable that they've been egging them on or dog-whistling them.
How so, exactly?
The shooter, in his letter, blames Zionists for propping up Obama and stealing all of our money. To quote:
The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media. The First Amendment is abrogated -- henceforth,
Other than a coincidental tie to opposition of Obama, what exactly about this is propagated by the GOP? They are THE "Big Israel" party. Israelis generally hold pretty low opinions of Obama. It's one of the few places in the world that doesn't welcome him with open arms.
Trying to match moral culpability for this as one could with Tiller's murder is fucking insanity, end of line. With Tiller, media figures actively called him "murderer" and even in the wake of death expressed happiness over his fate. There's nothing like that for this, at all.
Crazy people believe what they want to. I could flip this around pretty easy on you. Remember John Lee Malvo, the DC sniper? Being Black, there's a pretty good chance he was a Democrat. Tell me, friend, why is the Democratic party taking murderous serial killers under their wing? Why aren't they addressing their own culpability in those crimes?
but the fuse was lit long before they arrived on the scene.
in this case, yes.
I think he'd have gotten the same amount of shrapnel from elsewhere if he hadn't had that gun line to cling to, though.
And if Ruby hadn't killed Oswald, somebody else probably would have. Doesn't make Ruby any less guilty.
that is a horrible analogy
at BEST this would be like claiming that if the store that sold Ruby his gun had refused, Ruby would have bought the gun at a different store. At BEST.
Other than a coincidental tie to opposition of Obama, what exactly about this is propagated by the GOP? They are THE "Big Israel" party. Israelis generally hold pretty low opinions of Obama. It's one of the few places in the world that doesn't welcome him with open arms.
Last I heard, Obama was more popular than Netanyahu in Israel, though that may have changed by now.
Crazy people believe what they want to. I could flip this around pretty easy on you. Remember John Lee Malvo, the DC sniper? Being Black, there's a pretty good chance he was a Democrat. Tell me, friend, why is the Democratic party taking murderous serial killers under their wing? Why aren't they addressing their own culpability in those crimes?
Except that most of this shooter's views are well-represented in the fringe of the GOP, and I don't even know what Malvo thought.
Last I heard, Obama was more popular than Netanyahu in Israel, though that may have changed by now.
Folks need to remember that different nations elect leaders differently. In Israel recieving more votes doesn't make you prime minister if your party doesn't have enough parliment seats to pull it off.
In Israel's last election the moderate Kadima party won the most seats, with the conservative Likud party coming in second. However, third was the batshit right-wing party Yisrael Beitenu (Avi Leiberman really deserves a nice hard kick in the nuts) and Israel's liberal labor party coming in forth (and then all of the other parties). There weren't enough seats between Kadima and Labor to hold down a majority of the Parliment, and Kadima definitely didn't want to risk all of the right wing parties trying to come together to form a warmongering government bent on expelling arabs from Israel (again, Avigdor Leiberman is a HORRIBEL person) so they agreed to join in to a coalition government with Likud, allowing Likud to appoint their guy as Prime Minister.
So the Israelis got Bibi, when more of them really wanted Tsipi
However, it's undeniable that the GOP has provided cover for nutcases like this, and arguable that they've been egging them on or dog-whistling them.
How so, exactly?
The shooter, in his letter, blames Zionists for propping up Obama and stealing all of our money. To quote:
The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media. The First Amendment is abrogated -- henceforth,
Other than a coincidental tie to opposition of Obama, what exactly about this is propagated by the GOP? They are THE "Big Israel" party. Israelis generally hold pretty low opinions of Obama. It's one of the few places in the world that doesn't welcome him with open arms.
Trying to match moral culpability for this as one could with Tiller's murder is fucking insanity, end of line. With Tiller, media figures actively called him "murderer" and even in the wake of death expressed happiness over his fate. There's nothing like that for this, at all.
Crazy people believe what they want to. I could flip this around pretty easy on you. Remember John Lee Malvo, the DC sniper? Being Black, there's a pretty good chance he was a Democrat. Tell me, friend, why is the Democratic party taking murderous serial killers under their wing? Why aren't they addressing their own culpability in those crimes?
Fucking please.
Sigh. Read the thread.
Did you know about the DHS report about the threat of terrorism from the far-right that the GOP waged war on, and I believe was retracted as a result? It was a warning that included the very sorts of problems we have been seeing lately.
I called that providing cover, if you have a better term I'd like to hear it. They went on a rampage against accusations of far-right terrorism and some of the far-right is under their umbrella and has been supported by them. This particular guy was not under their umbrella, but he did have intersections with other parts of the far-right other than just his neo-nazism. And this isn't just a matter of murders, it's a matter of killing that is politically motivated.
As for the arguable part of egging them on, you get into guys like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, which have been discussed by others in this thread and in other threads. I didn't even really touch on that too much, as it is rather unclear how much of a contribution that stuff is.
but the fuse was lit long before they arrived on the scene.
in this case, yes.
I think he'd have gotten the same amount of shrapnel from elsewhere if he hadn't had that gun line to cling to, though.
And if Ruby hadn't killed Oswald, somebody else probably would have. Doesn't make Ruby any less guilty.
that is a horrible analogy
at BEST this would be like claiming that if the store that sold Ruby his gun had refused, Ruby would have bought the gun at a different store. At BEST.
Fucking whatever. My point is the relationship, not the severity.
but the fuse was lit long before they arrived on the scene.
in this case, yes.
I think he'd have gotten the same amount of shrapnel from elsewhere if he hadn't had that gun line to cling to, though.
And if Ruby hadn't killed Oswald, somebody else probably would have. Doesn't make Ruby any less guilty.
that is a horrible analogy
at BEST this would be like claiming that if the store that sold Ruby his gun had refused, Ruby would have bought the gun at a different store. At BEST.
Fucking whatever. My point is the relationship, not the severity.
In what way? I am contending that simply because von Brunn could have been spurred on that last little bit by something other than Fox, Limbaugh, et al, that does not reduce their (in this case, pretty small) amount of guilt. I'm not saying the right-wing machine is responsible, but they contributed some amount to this.
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
So wait, people are honestly thinking that nutjobs like Glenn Beck who get on fucking camera and cried because a goddamned democrat got elected and they don't think that someone, somewhere who is already on the fence about going on a rampage won't get tipped?
So wait, people are honestly thinking that nutjobs like Glenn Beck who get on fucking camera and cried because a goddamned democrat got elected and they don't think that someone, somewhere who is already on the fence about going on a rampage won't get tipped?
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
let's apply Occam's Razor here
Evander on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
So wait, people are honestly thinking that nutjobs like Glenn Beck who get on fucking camera and cried because a goddamned democrat got elected and they don't think that someone, somewhere who is already on the fence about going on a rampage won't get tipped?
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
let's apply Occam's Razor here
No, I don't honestly think that particular incident had anything to do with it. It's called an example of the right-wing fearmongering we've been getting for damn near a decade.
I'm not of the opinion that any news story will cause panic to break out in the streets of this nation, and in fact most viewers of any station are simply people watching the tube. But with every group theres a nutter in there somewhere, and you'd be a fool if you thought that the shit Fox pulls has had no appreciable effect because emotional response has no universal metric from which to measure it.
This guy just didn't come up with this shit on his own, he was coerced (and considering he thinks the holocaust never happened, coerced very easily) by others. I'm saying that people who spout fire and brimstone for no reason other than furthering an agenda are fucking poison, and Fox supports a few of these people.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
when you put it all in theoretics, sure
but I see no connection in this particular instance
and seeing as there is already another thread for discussing media culpability, I don't see I need to discuss the genreal in here.
As has been noted before, though, Glen Beck, et al, are entertainment programs. Blaming them for violence is, in some ways, similar to blaming video games for school shootings.
Except that school shooters never talk about the Flood or the Combine, whereas a bunch of the recent shooters have been spouting talking points straight from Rush and Fox. Other than that. sure.
Except that school shooters never talk about the Flood or the Combine, whereas a bunch of the recent shooters have been spouting talking points straight from Rush and Fox. Other than that. sure.
Except that school shooters never talk about the Flood or the Combine, whereas a bunch of the recent shooters have been spouting talking points straight from Rush and Fox. Other than that. sure.
Umm...
Columbine.
he's referencing a video game. Halo, I think.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Except that school shooters never talk about the Flood or the Combine, whereas a bunch of the recent shooters have been spouting talking points straight from Rush and Fox. Other than that. sure.
Umm...
Columbine.
he's referencing a video game. Halo, I think.
Actually the Combine is from Half-Life
I'm talking about the Columbine School shooting where the shooters were found to have notebooks full of DOOM maps after the fact, though, as an example of something analogous to this guys having mentioned one particular talking point mixed in with all his other meshugas
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
when you put it all in theoretics, sure
but I see no connection in this particular instance
and seeing as there is already another thread for discussing media culpability, I don't see I need to discuss the genreal in here.
As has been noted before, though, Glen Beck, et al, are entertainment programs. Blaming them for violence is, in some ways, similar to blaming video games for school shootings.
Not the same as games. Games are all about false hoods, there is no fucking mario?
These guys are talking about things in our day to day lives, they are real, and some people view them as an authority.
psychotix on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
when you put it all in theoretics, sure
but I see no connection in this particular instance
and seeing as there is already another thread for discussing media culpability, I don't see I need to discuss the genreal in here.
As has been noted before, though, Glen Beck, et al, are entertainment programs. Blaming them for violence is, in some ways, similar to blaming video games for school shootings.
Not the same as games. Games are all about false hoods, there is no fucking mario?
These guys are talking about things in our day to day lives, they are real, and some people view them as an authority.
Doubly so considering that apparently calling them out on stoking the flames is taboo.
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
when you put it all in theoretics, sure
but I see no connection in this particular instance
and seeing as there is already another thread for discussing media culpability, I don't see I need to discuss the genreal in here.
As has been noted before, though, Glen Beck, et al, are entertainment programs. Blaming them for violence is, in some ways, similar to blaming video games for school shootings.
Not the same as games. Games are all about false hoods, there is no fucking mario?
These guys are talking about things in our day to day lives, they are real, and some people view them as an authority.
so how many disclaimers do they need before it's okay?
The whole argument against violent video games (which I DON'T personally agree with, for the record) is that they are getting so realistic that they blur the lines of reality.
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
when you put it all in theoretics, sure
but I see no connection in this particular instance
and seeing as there is already another thread for discussing media culpability, I don't see I need to discuss the genreal in here.
As has been noted before, though, Glen Beck, et al, are entertainment programs. Blaming them for violence is, in some ways, similar to blaming video games for school shootings.
Not the same as games. Games are all about false hoods, there is no fucking mario?
These guys are talking about things in our day to day lives, they are real, and some people view them as an authority.
Doubly so considering that apparently calling them out on stoking the flames is taboo.
who is it taboo to?
if you mean here in this thread, then you're full of shit, because no one in this thread is defending them as being decent people, or anything
Evander on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
when you put it all in theoretics, sure
but I see no connection in this particular instance
and seeing as there is already another thread for discussing media culpability, I don't see I need to discuss the genreal in here.
As has been noted before, though, Glen Beck, et al, are entertainment programs. Blaming them for violence is, in some ways, similar to blaming video games for school shootings.
Not the same as games. Games are all about false hoods, there is no fucking mario?
These guys are talking about things in our day to day lives, they are real, and some people view them as an authority.
Doubly so considering that apparently calling them out on stoking the flames is taboo.
who is it taboo to?
if you mean here in this thread, then you're full of shit, because no one in this thread is defending them as being decent people, or anything
So you're agreeing that predominantly right wing pundits/talkingpoints/establishment is stoking the flames of hatred with their rhetoric, and that it's conceivable that they are at least partly to blame for these events occurring? Or at the very least guilty of creating an environment in which these psychos can find safe harbor and thrive?
So you're agreeing that predominantly right wing pundits/talkingpoints/establishment is stoking the flames of hatred with their rhetoric, and that it's conceivable that they are at least partly to blame for these events occurring? Or at the very least guilty of creating an environment in which these psychos can find safe harbor and thrive?
No, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
I am stating that it is an irrelevant strawman in this particular thread.
There are no "these events", this thread was made about a specific event to which your meshugas doesn't apply. If you want my opinions on the right-wing media, in general, then I'll gladly answer you elsewhere, where it is relevant.
Refusing to condemn a group when they have nothing to do with a thing is NOT the same as defending them. When you act like it is, you sound JUST LIKE Bill O'Reilly.
Evander on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
Yes, indeed. Next time Lou Dobbs calls out Obama's taxation strategy, we should immediately arrest him as an accomplice in a completely unrelated KKK matter.
Atomika on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
Yes, indeed. Next time Lou Dobbs calls out Obama's taxation strategy, we should immediately arrest him as an accomplice in a completely unrelated KKK matter.
Nowhere in my post did I say they should be held as accomplices. At most, they're morally responsible for encouraging people to act, whether or not it was intended. They need to realize they have a public voice that is heard and holds meaning for people, and as we all know interpretation can be a bitch. Don't put words in my mouth.
Edit - Specifying.
Henroid on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
They need to realize they have a public voice that is heard and holds meaning for people, and as we all know interpretation can be a bitch.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Limed for oblivious hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy? There is a huge difference between having some influence on an event, and therefore bearing some moral responsibility for it, and being legally liable for it. Equating the two is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
Henroid stated that my interpretation of his viewpoint regarding the media's "moral culpability" was invalid, immediately after he stated that the potential improper interpretation of the media's message made them morally culpable.
If that's not hypocrisy, then the word needs a new definition.
Henroid stated that my interpretation of his viewpoint regarding the media's "moral culpability" was invalid, immediately after he stated that the potential improper interpretation of the media's message made them morally culpable.
If that's not hypocrisy, then the word needs a new definition.
He didn't say anything about anyone improperly interpreting the media's message. Tell me, when Glenn Beck calls Obama a totalitarian socialist fascist who wants your guns, does it seem to you like he wants a peaceful discussion of Obama's policies? Is it really any wonder that some people are egged on by that to act out to 'protect their guns'? In contrast, you simply lied about what he said.
they're morally responsible for encouraging people to act . . . They need to realize they have a public voice . . . and as we all know interpretation can be a bitch
Tell me, when Glenn Beck calls Obama a totalitarian socialist fascist who wants your guns, does it seem to you like he wants a peaceful discussion of Obama's policies?
Is the rational response to concern over your 2nd Amendment rights showing up at a museum and showing exactly why it might be a good idea to take them from people?
they're morally responsible for encouraging people to act . . . They need to realize they have a public voice . . . and as we all know interpretation can be a bitch
Tell me, when Glenn Beck calls Obama a totalitarian socialist fascist who wants your guns, does it seem to you like he wants a peaceful discussion of Obama's policies?
Is the rational response to concern over your 2nd Amendment rights showing up at a museum and showing exactly why it might be a good idea to take them from people?
Limed for massive truth. Seriously, this is like condemning left wing pundits for calling the Iraq war illegal. It has the same potential to inflame action.
they're morally responsible for encouraging people to act . . . They need to realize they have a public voice . . . and as we all know interpretation can be a bitch
Tell me, when Glenn Beck calls Obama a totalitarian socialist fascist who wants your guns, does it seem to you like he wants a peaceful discussion of Obama's policies?
Is the rational response to concern over your 2nd Amendment rights showing up at a museum and showing exactly why it might be a good idea to take them from people?
These people aren't rational, but that doesn't mean they're not egged on by Glenn Beck.
they're morally responsible for encouraging people to act . . . They need to realize they have a public voice . . . and as we all know interpretation can be a bitch
Tell me, when Glenn Beck calls Obama a totalitarian socialist fascist who wants your guns, does it seem to you like he wants a peaceful discussion of Obama's policies?
Is the rational response to concern over your 2nd Amendment rights showing up at a museum and showing exactly why it might be a good idea to take them from people?
Limed for massive truth. Seriously, this is like condemning left wing pundits for calling the Iraq war illegal. It has the same potential to inflame action.
I don't think left wing pundits ever called for revolution and secession.
In the case of Tiller, yes. I do think the rhetoric there was highly suspect.
In terms of this relating to what would have to be 2nd amendment rhetoric, I don't think that should be toned down for any reason other than its own inherent flaws.
I think right wing pundits should stop saying Obama is out to take people's guns because it's false and full of cognitive dissonance, not because of this incident.
My problem with this is that I don't think you can cleanly separate the incidents (or the other two incidents). I think there is an entirely rational fear that more crazy people are going to crawl out of the woodwork and shoot people based on their crazy ideology because they've now seen four people do it on national TV. So I think anything that contributes to this general atmosphere should be toned down simply for that reason alone. (Obviously they shouldn't be saying this shit in the first place, because it's wrong).
Also, in the case of the cop-shooter (the one before Tiller), I believe 2nd amendment crap was the prime motivator for the killings.
I think you can definitely separate this incident from Tiller. In the case of Tiller, the victim was constantly called out by name in the right wing media and demonized in overt ways (e.g. "Tiller the baby killer"). There is a clear link there that fed the motive of the killer.
Here, we've got a much more loose connection leading to motive. Mainstream right wing pundits incorrectly exaggerate Obama's 2nd amendment positions =/= shooting people at the Holocaust museum in the same way that calling Tiller a baby killer = Tiller's murder.
As for the cop-shooter, I don't know enough about that to make a statement. But since this thread is about the Holocaust shooting, I'm speaking purely regarding that incident. I don't think the mainstream right wing media is culpable in any meaningful way.
Posts
How so, exactly?
The shooter, in his letter, blames Zionists for propping up Obama and stealing all of our money. To quote:
The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media. The First Amendment is abrogated -- henceforth,
Other than a coincidental tie to opposition of Obama, what exactly about this is propagated by the GOP? They are THE "Big Israel" party. Israelis generally hold pretty low opinions of Obama. It's one of the few places in the world that doesn't welcome him with open arms.
Trying to match moral culpability for this as one could with Tiller's murder is fucking insanity, end of line. With Tiller, media figures actively called him "murderer" and even in the wake of death expressed happiness over his fate. There's nothing like that for this, at all.
Crazy people believe what they want to. I could flip this around pretty easy on you. Remember John Lee Malvo, the DC sniper? Being Black, there's a pretty good chance he was a Democrat. Tell me, friend, why is the Democratic party taking murderous serial killers under their wing? Why aren't they addressing their own culpability in those crimes?
Fucking please.
And if Ruby hadn't killed Oswald, somebody else probably would have. Doesn't make Ruby any less guilty.
What are you basing that on?
As much as AIPAC would like you to believe it, they do NOT speak for all for all supporters of Israel.
that is a horrible analogy
at BEST this would be like claiming that if the store that sold Ruby his gun had refused, Ruby would have bought the gun at a different store. At BEST.
Except that most of this shooter's views are well-represented in the fringe of the GOP, and I don't even know what Malvo thought.
Folks need to remember that different nations elect leaders differently. In Israel recieving more votes doesn't make you prime minister if your party doesn't have enough parliment seats to pull it off.
In Israel's last election the moderate Kadima party won the most seats, with the conservative Likud party coming in second. However, third was the batshit right-wing party Yisrael Beitenu (Avi Leiberman really deserves a nice hard kick in the nuts) and Israel's liberal labor party coming in forth (and then all of the other parties). There weren't enough seats between Kadima and Labor to hold down a majority of the Parliment, and Kadima definitely didn't want to risk all of the right wing parties trying to come together to form a warmongering government bent on expelling arabs from Israel (again, Avigdor Leiberman is a HORRIBEL person) so they agreed to join in to a coalition government with Likud, allowing Likud to appoint their guy as Prime Minister.
So the Israelis got Bibi, when more of them really wanted Tsipi
Sigh. Read the thread.
Did you know about the DHS report about the threat of terrorism from the far-right that the GOP waged war on, and I believe was retracted as a result? It was a warning that included the very sorts of problems we have been seeing lately.
I called that providing cover, if you have a better term I'd like to hear it. They went on a rampage against accusations of far-right terrorism and some of the far-right is under their umbrella and has been supported by them. This particular guy was not under their umbrella, but he did have intersections with other parts of the far-right other than just his neo-nazism. And this isn't just a matter of murders, it's a matter of killing that is politically motivated.
As for the arguable part of egging them on, you get into guys like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, which have been discussed by others in this thread and in other threads. I didn't even really touch on that too much, as it is rather unclear how much of a contribution that stuff is.
the relationship is ALSO different
I am constantly surprised by how much Von Brunn looks like Stacy Keach (American History X makes this even creepier)
In what way? I am contending that simply because von Brunn could have been spurred on that last little bit by something other than Fox, Limbaugh, et al, that does not reduce their (in this case, pretty small) amount of guilt. I'm not saying the right-wing machine is responsible, but they contributed some amount to this.
exactly!
do you honestly think that glen beck crying on tv would lead a man to shoot up the holocaust museum?
let's apply Occam's Razor here
No, I don't honestly think that particular incident had anything to do with it. It's called an example of the right-wing fearmongering we've been getting for damn near a decade.
I'm not of the opinion that any news story will cause panic to break out in the streets of this nation, and in fact most viewers of any station are simply people watching the tube. But with every group theres a nutter in there somewhere, and you'd be a fool if you thought that the shit Fox pulls has had no appreciable effect because emotional response has no universal metric from which to measure it.
This guy just didn't come up with this shit on his own, he was coerced (and considering he thinks the holocaust never happened, coerced very easily) by others. I'm saying that people who spout fire and brimstone for no reason other than furthering an agenda are fucking poison, and Fox supports a few of these people.
I think the point is that these TV personalities and politicians are saying things that these whackos in the country take as, "See, they agree with me!" When they act dramatic or say dramatic things on television, those who would sincerely take dramatic action are empowered.
when you put it all in theoretics, sure
but I see no connection in this particular instance
and seeing as there is already another thread for discussing media culpability, I don't see I need to discuss the genreal in here.
As has been noted before, though, Glen Beck, et al, are entertainment programs. Blaming them for violence is, in some ways, similar to blaming video games for school shootings.
Umm...
Columbine.
he's referencing a video game. Halo, I think.
Actually the Combine is from Half-Life
I'm talking about the Columbine School shooting where the shooters were found to have notebooks full of DOOM maps after the fact, though, as an example of something analogous to this guys having mentioned one particular talking point mixed in with all his other meshugas
Not the same as games. Games are all about false hoods, there is no fucking mario?
These guys are talking about things in our day to day lives, they are real, and some people view them as an authority.
Doubly so considering that apparently calling them out on stoking the flames is taboo.
so how many disclaimers do they need before it's okay?
The whole argument against violent video games (which I DON'T personally agree with, for the record) is that they are getting so realistic that they blur the lines of reality.
who is it taboo to?
if you mean here in this thread, then you're full of shit, because no one in this thread is defending them as being decent people, or anything
So you're agreeing that predominantly right wing pundits/talkingpoints/establishment is stoking the flames of hatred with their rhetoric, and that it's conceivable that they are at least partly to blame for these events occurring? Or at the very least guilty of creating an environment in which these psychos can find safe harbor and thrive?
No, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
I am stating that it is an irrelevant strawman in this particular thread.
There are no "these events", this thread was made about a specific event to which your meshugas doesn't apply. If you want my opinions on the right-wing media, in general, then I'll gladly answer you elsewhere, where it is relevant.
Refusing to condemn a group when they have nothing to do with a thing is NOT the same as defending them. When you act like it is, you sound JUST LIKE Bill O'Reilly.
Yes, indeed. Next time Lou Dobbs calls out Obama's taxation strategy, we should immediately arrest him as an accomplice in a completely unrelated KKK matter.
Nowhere in my post did I say they should be held as accomplices. At most, they're morally responsible for encouraging people to act, whether or not it was intended. They need to realize they have a public voice that is heard and holds meaning for people, and as we all know interpretation can be a bitch. Don't put words in my mouth.
Edit - Specifying.
Limed for oblivious hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy? There is a huge difference between having some influence on an event, and therefore bearing some moral responsibility for it, and being legally liable for it. Equating the two is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
Henroid stated that my interpretation of his viewpoint regarding the media's "moral culpability" was invalid, immediately after he stated that the potential improper interpretation of the media's message made them morally culpable.
If that's not hypocrisy, then the word needs a new definition.
He didn't say anything about anyone improperly interpreting the media's message. Tell me, when Glenn Beck calls Obama a totalitarian socialist fascist who wants your guns, does it seem to you like he wants a peaceful discussion of Obama's policies? Is it really any wonder that some people are egged on by that to act out to 'protect their guns'? In contrast, you simply lied about what he said.
Uhh . . .
Is the rational response to concern over your 2nd Amendment rights showing up at a museum and showing exactly why it might be a good idea to take them from people?
Limed for massive truth. Seriously, this is like condemning left wing pundits for calling the Iraq war illegal. It has the same potential to inflame action.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
These people aren't rational, but that doesn't mean they're not egged on by Glenn Beck.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't think left wing pundits ever called for revolution and secession.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I think you can definitely separate this incident from Tiller. In the case of Tiller, the victim was constantly called out by name in the right wing media and demonized in overt ways (e.g. "Tiller the baby killer"). There is a clear link there that fed the motive of the killer.
Here, we've got a much more loose connection leading to motive. Mainstream right wing pundits incorrectly exaggerate Obama's 2nd amendment positions =/= shooting people at the Holocaust museum in the same way that calling Tiller a baby killer = Tiller's murder.
As for the cop-shooter, I don't know enough about that to make a statement. But since this thread is about the Holocaust shooting, I'm speaking purely regarding that incident. I don't think the mainstream right wing media is culpable in any meaningful way.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods