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
Posts
Okay, so you are arguing intent. What's the proof? Are these groups really so sizable as to provide an important sources of revenue? Since they're fringe groups, I'd assume they're not a sizable portion of the audience for the high ratings Hannity, for example, enjoys. Also, to be clear, are you saying they're are purposefully catering to these fringe groups, or that they're saying what they normally would, and don't care if the fringe groups decide to act?
Which is funny, because I'd love to see examples of left wing terrorism inspired by Rev. Wright and ACORN. Shit, I'm struggling to think of any that Ayers has inspired. If your aim is to show that there is parity between the mouthpieces on both sides when it comes to inspiring domestic terrorism, I'm afraid you're not being very convincing.
You couldn't even find any decent quotes from left-wing figures - as in ever, at all - that is in any way similar to the sort of bullshit Glenn Beck and Hannity spews. On Fox News this shit happens every day.
There is nothing intrinsically innocent about the political left that makes them immune to this. If we were talking about a different country, or a different time period, you might be correct. But we're not, we're talking about the here and now.
And I have seen very little evidence at all that any sort of leftist groups are anywhere near as widespread and organized as the crazy shit that goes on in the right - just look through some of the stuff the ADL or SPLC has on-file and you'll see what I mean. But that's all beside the point.
I'm not convinced that a sizable chunk of the right-wing mainstream media outlets are advoctaing political violence in any systemic way.
Someone's comment (sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping up since I'm also trying to work
No, I'm not arguing intent. Why do you keep saying that? I think all of these people are going to say whatever it takes to get people looking at them. I don't know if any of them actually believe some or any of what they say, and I don't think it matters.
I am arguing that their rhetoric legitimizes the extremist right wing elements that are responsible for these crimes.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I think this is more or less the ultimate end of the conversation. If you (in the generic sense, not you as in Dyscord) can't see the difference between Wanda Sykes mocking Limbaugh's drug addiction and Ann Coulter arguing that the only way to communicate with liberals is bombs and baseball bats, I don't really think there's any reason to talk to you.
Bonus pre-emptive rebuttal: If you can't see the difference beween "there's no reason to talk to you" and "you are a baby-murderer who must face the judgment of God," you might be clinically retarded.
That is intent. This, and your previous quote, are actually different arguments. You have:
Argument 1: Right-wing rhetoric from the MSM legitimizes domestic terror groups.
Argument 2: The Right-wing elements of the MSM are doing this on purpose.
Here's a question:
does it actually make any fucking difference what their intent is?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
You don't have to advocate anything to legitimize a view. Simply airing the view it within the confines of an MSM broadcast or having a reach that effectively makes you part of the MSM, makes it legitimate by virtue of you including it within the conversation.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
But they know they're doing it - they would have to be complete morons to not know they're doing it because the people who do snap and do crazy stuff, like murder, and get caught use justifications straight out of their own mouths (that is to say, out of the mouths of the pundits) when they're asked why they did it.
They don't even have to know they're doing it. If the show is taking place within the confines of the MSM or reaching a broad section of the populace, and you're viewed as an authority figure, then any view which you bring up (unless you add specific context to it) is de facto legitimized in the minds of your audience.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
For me, it does if we're trying to determine culpability. See, from my perspective, you keep negating yourself on whether or not the right-wing pundits are culpable. You may disagree with my take on culpability, and we can have that conversation, if you like.
It seems like splitting hairs to you, but it helps me get to the bottom of the communication issue we were having.
He is stating they have the intent to support their crazies. Which is obvious. They will claim "Oh, we didn't think anyone would actually take us seriously!" which is true. Much like how a drunk driver doesn't actually expect to ram into another car at 80 mph. Its an unintended consequence without intent, but not an unforeseeable consequence for which nobody bears any responsibility.
There's really no completely pure way to prove intent, we can only prove likely intent and what a reasonable person would have expected to happen. Someone accused of any wrongdoing will always have the defense of "That isn't what I meant!" and until we develop some sci-fi mindreading technology, there's no way to completely refute that. Instead we can ask what their intent seemed to be and what a reasonable person would expect to happen as a result of their actions.
The intent of all these right-wing loony pundits is most likely to make tons of money and have a gigantic fanbase. Would a reasonable person expect a paranoid, gun-owning zealot who is incited to violence against a godless, traitorous enemy who cannot understand logic to perhaps do something violent?
Very objective and factual analysis by Mr. O'Reilly. Certainly he isn't fomenting hate with nick-names like Tiller the Baby Killer..
I already said I don't think they're culpable.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
If it's okay, I'd like to follow this thread rather than some of the left-wing, right-wing stuff we've been arguing, since I just don't have time to dig up sources on that right now and it'll get the thread much closer to the topic.
Since most pundits just spout talking points anyway, how do we blame the media figures when the extremist probably already has them memorized? Is it repetition of the talking points? Do we think that enough high profile people agreeing with the extremist is what finally puts him over the edge? Or do the pundits choose the target by focusing on one doctor in particular?
It's like if you had a crazy-ass psychopath cousin with a known penchant for violent behavior in your house, and your neighbor pissed you off and you told your cousin, "Damn, I fucking hate that dude, he's always trying to do something to me, somebody needs to just get rid of him" and then said cousin goes after the guy with an axe. No, you didn't actually tell the guy to do it and probably didn't even want him to do it. But you knew the guy was crazy and you shouldn't suggest shit to a crazy person and not expect them to eventually react.
Media personalities know that psychos are listening to them, it's inevitable when you have a national audience.
Limed for absolute fucking truth.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Well, when you elevate a particular opinion to the MSM level of discussion and include it in regular political debate, you, as repeated before, legitimize that opinion. So now, you have a segment of your populace that sees that it's perfectly legitimate to hold a non-political opinion (violence) as a solution to a political problem. Extremists and crazies will seize on anything to act, but if a particular opinion appears to be accepted in society already then there's less chance that they won't act on that.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
That credibility is magnified many times over when it goes from being someone you know personally to someone on TV with a bigass show. People just assume stuff on TV is true whether they admit it or not, or at least they internalize those ideas and concepts much more easily. So, it goes without saying that media figures with a wide audience should use that pulpit responsibly instead of just saying whatever, because they have societally-invested credibility most private citizens don't have.
And I think that calling out a private individual on national TV is over the line regardless of the issue at hand unless there's a damn good reason. If someone was accused of some heinous murder it would be irresponsible to call them "Bob the Axe Maniac who eats babies" on national TV and act like that's a given fact, at least before it's proven in a court of law. If Bob is indeed tried and convicted of eating babies and axe maniac-ing then go right ahead, but if Bob is innocent you're exposing him to a great deal of risk by just going ahead and passing judgement yourself.
The point is that these pundits contribute to a situation where people are encouraged to get more and more extreme not only in their political views but in what should be done about their political views. For some people, the end result is violence.
That guy running his newsletter in Iowa plays a role, too; for Roeder, probably it was a much bigger role. But the national pundits have a reach that far exceeds one wacko in Iowa with a newsletter.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I think just doing it for cash is probably worse.
Truly crazy people are kind of sad while greedy calculating fucks get no sympathy from me.
I think it's obvious pundits should watch what they say. If they're not allowed to say "fuck" on cable they sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to say "X is a killer and he needs to be stopped". They know where that goes and it's happened many, many times before.
If Actress X says "Fur is Murder," and PETA's all "That's my spokesmodel!" are they responsible if one guy decides to murder a woman wearing a fur coat? Do we wait for an established pattern of behavior from a fringe group before thinking we should dial it back to "Fur is Unpleasant?"
I just prefer to blame the crazy person, not his influences.
Crazy people aren't created in a total vacuum.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
This I can agree with. Private figures should be handled more delicately than public figures because they are less prepared for the additional scrutiny and protection they might need. You see this with the media in general whenever a nobody becomes a big news story.
Thing is when was the last time a politician courted the PETA vote?
This is seriously like talking about how terrible war is, and then having someone interrupt and say "yeah but kids playing with g.i. joes are pretty bad too." It's a ridiculous comparison.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
That's why I picked it, to create a new scenario. Abortion clinics and doctors have been attacked since well before Rush and Hannity came onto the scene.
If you never address the influences leading people to choose violence as a form of political solution (when it never is), and it starts happening frequently enough (as, for a non-US political example, in the case of the resolution of civil wars where violence is already legitimized and you're trying to remove that from political discourse), then you won't really being doing much from stemming the growth of said viewpoints.
Also, there is a difference between a crazy person and a person acting on a legitimized viewpoint that is nonetheless crazy. The one example isn't acting rational, whereas the other is acting rationally by virtue of said viewpoint being considered acceptable by segments of society.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
If you're using "Fur is murder!" as an example, you should actually make it a valid example.
If PETAhad a several-year-long campaign against a fur coat provider, called them maniacs, mass murderers, genocidal creeps, child molesters, traitors, nazis, human waste, and said over and over again that "someone must stop them!" and "God demands they be punished!" and "they are murderers and they will face judgment from The Lord!" would the be maybe a tiny little itsy bit culpable?
If this fur coat-ist was then murdered, and PETA came out and said "Good, they got what they deserved, anyone want some tofu-wings?" would that perhaps indicate that PETA isn't a legitimate organization but more-or-less a borderline-terrorist front?
You continue to reference left-wing movements or individuals in your arguments, and every single one fails as an example. You can't compare PETA and Operation Rescue because their rhetoric and tone are dramatically different. Just because they're both unpopular organizations does not mean they are identical organizations.
Well, to be fair, PETA has compared factory farms to the holocaust.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Even if they're creating a worldview that espouses murdering, attacking people, why do so few people actually do anything about it, if it's such a rational consequence of their worldview? For example, I tried looking up some statistics on abortion clinic attacks and found these:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#Incidents_in_the_United_States
They paint a picture of dramatically reduced violence against abortion doctors and clinics in the past ten years, as FOX News and their ilk have grown more influential.
I'm not sure that, "my viewers are going to murder someone" is really a reasonable concern for them to have.
Let's forget I said PETA, it was a thought experiment that didn't go anywhere since everyone is more concerned about the partisan-ness of the example than the example itself. I literally only picked it because of a popular slogan made it instantly accessible as an example.
I'm not going to defend PETA, they're nuts, but "factory farms = nazis!" isn't on the same level as the stuff these people are saying. It's dumb, irresponsible, and reactionary, and might seem like damn near the bottom of the barrel vis a vis dialogue. It isn't. Or maybe it is, but these folks have broken through the bottom of the barrel. They're in nega-barrel territory. Websites devoted to mockup pictures of doctors with sniper scopes over their heads? Calling a specific doctor a child molesting mass murderer? Not on the same scale.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat