The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Eliminationist Rhetoric and the Culpability of Media Figures
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Today's murder of Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who was one of the few nationally to provide late term abortions to women whose lives were in danger, has again brought up the idea of right wing domestic terrorism. We saw similar incidents earlier this year in Denver, Pittsburgh, Tennessee I believe, and last year in Arkansas. And of course the kerfuffle over the DHS report on domestic right wing terrorist groups.
This has raised all kinds of hell on the lefty internets. The most frequently cited book is The Eliminationists by David Neiwart. The kind of article concerning today's incident in particular is something like Digby's post here.
Concerning this case in particular, Bill O'Reilly was prominent in attacking Dr. Tiller, as Andrew Sullivan documents. His case again became prominent because Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius defended him while she was Governor of Kansas and he contributed to her campaigns. This was raised at her confirmation hearings.
So the questions are: does the right wing engage in violent rhetoric? If so, does that make the members of the media spewing said rhetoric culpable in some respect when tragedies like this one happen? Where exactly is the line?
This has raised all kinds of hell on the lefty internets. The most frequently cited book is The Eliminationists by David Neiwart. The kind of article concerning today's incident in particular is something like Digby's post here.
Concerning this case in particular, Bill O'Reilly was prominent in attacking Dr. Tiller, as Andrew Sullivan documents. His case again became prominent because Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius defended him while she was Governor of Kansas and he contributed to her campaigns. This was raised at her confirmation hearings.
So the questions are: does the right wing engage in violent rhetoric? If so, does that make the members of the media spewing said rhetoric culpable in some respect when tragedies like this one happen? Where exactly is the line?
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
enlightenedbum on
0
Posts
Like who?
They're certainly not inspiring any left wing domestic terrorism.
Like those dudes that sabotage animal research things and stuff.
Or ruin property etc.
Not as evil, because I don't think they generally try to take human lives, but it's still similarish.
Except that you're not going to see Keith Olbermann read off ALF talking points on Countdown. That's sort of the major difference.
There are Left Wing Domestic Terror groups, nobody is disputing that. What is being questioned is the assertion that there are Left Wing Mainstream Media Figures stoking the fires of deranged people who commit those acts of terrorism.
EDIT: Multipl-y beaten
Edit: totally beaten, ignore me.
Yeah I kind of disconnected it from the actual topic of the thread. You are all quite right.
Mind you, I still think it's dumb to say that right wing media outlets are in any way directly responsible for this. Even right wing talking heads don't advocate murder. They often use some strong rhetoric, sure, but I don't think it's anywhere extreme enough for it to be that incendiary. It's not like, say the radio stations in Rwanda that actually incited genocide. Blaming them to me seems similar to when conservative people blame Marylin Manson or Eminem for inciting violence in kids. Doesn't really stack up.
I was under the assumption that they were being called irresponsible for their personal actions which promotes an environment more prone for these kinds of incidents, not that they are personally responsible for the actual murder.
That's like saying Taxi Driver had a hand in the attempt on Reagan's life because the killer related his attempt to De Niro's violence.
People may associate their acts to what others say; however Hannity and such pundits do not call for the murder of a figure - it is the killer who crosses the line.
o_O
And, frankly, if the Columbine shooters had been Marilyn Manson fanatics, cited lines from Manson's lyrics as justification for their heinous actions, and Manson himself continually stated that anti-Mansonites were out to destroy all good Manson fans, then I would have to wonder if Manson was not at least partially culpable for what went on.
You're right - they don't come out and say "kill the liberals!" They're not that stupid.
What they do, however, is delegitimize the opposition and link them to the problems in the US and the world. So what gets said, instead, is that liberals are traitors who are destroying America and endangering you and your family. The message of liberalism is redefined as being illegitimate and treasonous, and those who hold those views as people to be eliminated.
This is the heart of eliminationism - the classifying of your opponent as someone not worthy of discourse, but someone to be killed.
And it doesn't need to be extreme to be dangerous. All it needs to do is to create a climate that someone disposed to violent action sees their action as being condoned by society. And that's what the right wing does - it justifies the worldview of these individuals.
No, they just give him the moral and societal support to go that final step.
Edit: The difference between what the right wing pundits do and your Taxi Driver "argument" is that Coppola wasn't telling people in the movie that some group is the font of evil.
I agree; however, I do not think that there is a way to identify and eradicate exactly which parts of their rhetoric are arguably dangerous, without bias, without limiting free speech.
I already know all of that.
How does a one off fictional movie compare to near-daily irresponsible screeds using a massive microphone?
Who is advocating that the government censor their broadcasts?
That's how I see this. On one hand, this is difficult to prove--on the other hand, the left's most vitriolic media potentates--as increasingly rare as they seem--seem to rarely advocate actual violence and murder. On the right, you have people like Coulter, who regularly cross the line (and excuse themselves with something to do with "open warfare", as though there were tanks shooting other tanks on the streets, if at all), and people like Limbaugh, who come close. I generally ignore Limbaugh, but I think he goes a far as to hope certain people on the top of his shit list actually come to harm, though does not claim he'd do it himself (unlike Coulter).
Of course, this is very greatly subjective, I'll admit.
I'm looking forward to hearing what O'Reilly says about all this, what his talking points are here. Is he going to own up to stoking the fires, or is this going to be "a complex issue, with a very angry person going too far against someone the law had failed to stop"?
It rather reminds me of Card's Ramen/Varelse contrast in Speaker for the Dead.
It also reminds me of all the times I've kind of shrugged at old people not accepting gay marriage and made a caustic remark about waiting for them to die off. There may have been some wittisisms about iceflows.
No, that's religious people being religious. If you want to see "this is so sad" it'll mention 'mass murder, blood on his hands, liberals using this, &c.' in it.
I wouldn't be surprised if he just ignores it or does a quick 3 second 'condemnation' before a break. While simultaneously disparaging the deceased.
Did those witticisms constitute a several hundred page tome that got published by a major printing house?
This is so true, his show gives me the shivers. However, the rush to identify this killing as right-wing domestic terrorism as sort of a riposte to the right wing's outrage over the administration's warning about right-wing terrorism is scary to me as well. Scary because if the left contrinues to play it like this, the right-wing establishment could gain momentum by saying essentially "liberals want to blame us for this too?" Most people who identify as right-wing are equally repulsed by this level of violence, and when they see their identified group being used to describe this, they will be further repulsed by the media. "Right-wing extremism" is a dangerous term for Democrats and the media in general, accurate as it may be..
I kept submitting it but they said it "wasn't commercially viable."
Bastards.
But seriously, I think it is important to recognize in ourselves the same tendencies and capacities, even though they are obviously taken to greater extremes on the far right.
"People (who disagree with us) are idiots/racists/rednecks/coniving liars/traitors and it isn't worth trying to talk to them or convince them" is a meme that isn't exactly rare on the old PA boards.
...it is right-wing domestic terrorism. A right wing extremist murdered someone in cold blood, and with malice aforethought due to political motivation. That is the definition of terrorism, and the person who seems the most likely suspect is not a foreign national or immigrant.
There's a legitimate argument to be made about definition creep and the concern over it, and the accompanying term extensions, when we're talking about something as trivial as graffiti. This was first degree murder.
See, but the Operation Rescue people said:
That's in the part where they're trying to look kind and reasonable, and yet Jesus gets shoehorned in there, where in fact Jesus didn't get shoehorned into the quotes by the minister at the church where the doctor was murdered. It's weird. The minister is talking about the man, the family is talking about the man, and...
I dunno. If nobody else sees a dog-whistle, it's likely just my natural creeped-out-ness when confronted with an evangelist who's damn well gonna work a Jesus reference into the conversation somehow.
And if Glenn Beck was just a popular guy on Stormfront, or Jeffe gets a multi-million dollar contract with FNC/NBC, that'd be an apt comparison.
I'm not drawing any kind of equivalency here.
On this subject, the right seems to have a cultural disposition towards pushing God. I'm not trying to sound anti-religious, and if I do, I apologize, but I can't really think of a better term.
I'll present something I feel is entirely plausible and not in the least exaggerated (aside from the background). Let's say my fictional older brother is a close associate to the US Attorney General, and one of the most prominent lawyers in the country, and has helped spearhead legalizing gay marriage in the United States. Let's say that he participated in making it legal in Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, South Africa, etc. Let's say, also, that he was absolutely instrumental in making it recognized in New York and, through his work, is making enormous progress throughout the United States.
So, he's target number one among the "defense of marriage" crowd, including the minority within that willing to resort to violence. So, unfortunately, he's shot while attending a wedding for a family friend in New York. New spreads worldwide, etc.
And my brother, ex-Target No. 1, happened to be an atheist, like pretty much everyone else in my family. This is common knowledge, and naturally, was ammunition against him.
I can't imagine that I wouldn't receive the following call from some prominent right-wing ideologue or "defense of marriage" religious pastor-big-shot. And it would probably go to something of the effect of, "....our prayers are with you and your family. While we were strongly opposed to what your brother was doing, we do not approve of such vigilantism and terrorism. We're sure your brother is in a better place now, and hope your family finds the only peace available in your difficult time--through the Lord Jesus Christ."
And pretty much the only thing I can say to this is. "Thank you, I appreciate your sympathy, but you must know that my brother and I were atheists. I would actually prefer you not pray for us for a number of reasons. I would also ask that you not extend your prayers to him in the public forum."
I mean, what if some religious ideologue died, and me, as a humanist big-shot, called up their survivors and said "I'm terribly sorry for your loss, but I would like you to know, while your ___ no longer exists in this universe, and will never exist again, that his legacy itself lives in a manner he could not. I hope your family is able to come to terms with your grief, but instead of burying yourself in your religious fervor, focus on his legacy and his work here on Earth, in reality. Because that's the only way you're not going to go completely insane from grief and delusions like he did." A little asshole-ish, isn't it?
Of course, I might be the only militant atheist radical who's slightly bothered by that. o_O
TLDR--the right is damn pushy, even when it seems inappropriate. Especially when it seems inappropriate. A lot of these sympathies sound dangerously like "Your ____ died as part of God's plan. Maybe you should start kissing his ass more so you won't follow suit." I suppose it could be easily fixed if they would at least acknowledge that grief can exist without absolute Christian (they are almost entirely Christian in this country) piety.
I know of people who have managed to work Jesus into an order for a HEPA Filter from the manufacturer. I'm pretty sure that's still just religious people being religious.
Then I'm not entirely sure what your point has been. People have a right to say whatever they damn well please (provided it doesn't promote imminent lawlessness) but those who have a megaphone in the public square have a responsibility to not be so batshit fucking insane due to the power they have been granted.
Yes you are. It's part of your whole moderate stance - "Well, they're really bad, but you can do the same bad things too." It really takes the wind out of your opposition.
I got a call from my health insurance provider, ending with a wish that I have a "blessed day".
o_O
That probably is just religious people being religious when they probably should be as unbiased and neutral as possible, rather than proselytizing. Still weird as hell though.
From one of the 28 separate shows during which O'Rly demonized Tiller on cable.