Jump to content

Giffords Shooting


Pangloss
 Share

Recommended Posts

As the link mentions, we already blame violent behavior on video games and rap lyrics. Is that ridiculous as well?

 

Why is it even out of the realm of possibility that the rhetoric moved one person to action?

 

Yes on the first question. On the second, it is out of the realm of relevant consideration since only one person acted in this way despite millions exposed to the rhetoric. Even considering dosage, there are too many who indulge in similar levels yet don't attempt to assassinate government agents - hell, many of us don't even lob cuss words at them.

 

Logic directs us instead to the nature of the subject exposed to this rhetoric that acted contrary to all other subjects exposed to it.

 

Realm of possibility? Sure, god is in the realm of possibility. But why should we consider it?

 

Watching the entire internet blame Sarah Palin for this is really quite amusing.

 

It is. But this is her Ground Zero Mosque moment. Now that we have a shooting, let's have some class and remove the crosshairs from that map and at least try not to give more leverage to the anti-gun wave heading for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to blame anti-gun lobbyists for blaming guns, especially since it's far from being an anecdote, and a 9-year-old just died. Just for once, the gun fanatics should have some decency and shut up, people just died, and they won't lose access their precious firearms anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the link mentions, we already blame violent behavior on video games and rap lyrics. Is that ridiculous as well?

 

Yes it is, in my opinion.

 

 

Why is it even out of the realm of possibility that the rhetoric moved one person to action?

 

Oh it's not that -- I agree that flakey people might draw their motivations from elevated rhetoric, rap music, or violent video games. What I'm saying is that isolated incidents, whatever their motivations, are not indicators of trends. Nor should they be influential on public policy.

 

I'm not going to demand that people watch what they say because some crazy person might go and shoot someone. Crazy people will find a reason to shoot someone.

 

The political rhetoric is bad because it's pointlessly divisive and obstructive, not because it may occassionally lead to a mass murder by someone who would have just found their motivation elsewhere were the rhetoric not so elevated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to blame anti-gun lobbyists for blaming guns, especially since it's far from being an anecdote, and a 9-year-old just died. Just for once, the gun fanatics should have some decency and shut up, people just died, and they won't lose access their precious firearms anyway.

 

So the anti-gun lobbyists are hard to blame, but the pro-gun lobbyists should have the decency to shut up? What's the difference? Can't we all just agree that exploiting the emotionally charged aftermath of a singular tragedy for political gain is sleazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that flakey people might draw their motivations from elevated rhetoric, rap music, or violent video games. What I'm saying is that isolated incidents, whatever their motivations, are not indicators of trends. Nor should they be influential on public policy.

The difference is that the purpose of the rhetoric is to draw people to action. It's designed to change your mind or do something you wouldn't necessarily already do. It's not a large leap from violent rhetoric to violent thoughts/feelings. As we all know, thoughts/feelings are the basis for action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who want to paint Jared Loughner as a conservative are going to want to reconsider.

 

Even as Twitter users speculated on his political views — with one self-identified former classmate describing him as “left-wing” — Loughner’s favorite books, posted on the site, painted the more jumbled portrait of a troubled young man with violently anti-establishment views.

 

In addition to Hitler’s memoirs, it includes the “Communist Manifesto,” George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451.”

 

But the motives of Loughner — an English grammar-obsessed Army reject — remain murky and don’t fit into an easy liberal-conservative rubric. In recent weeks, he took to the Web to rail against brainwashing by government officials and “mind-control methods.”

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47257.html

 

Aside from apparent insanity, any political views appear to be more in the realm of anarchy and general dissent. This is a crackpot protester of the general type we see at G8 summits and anti-globalization rallies. Of late he may have taken to hanging out more with the local gun-toting tea party-aligned extremists, but it would be pretty foolish to label him as being aligned with any mainstream American political ideology.

 

--------------------

 

The difference is that the purpose of the rhetoric is to draw people to action. It's designed to change your mind or do something you wouldn't necessarily already do. It's not a large leap from violent rhetoric to violent thoughts/feelings. As we all know, thoughts/feelings are the basis for action.

 

So do you feel that video games should be censored, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, many of them very much are.

o.O

 

[citation needed]

 

Even were that true, those would be isolated examples. Political rhetoric as a whole is designed for that. Generally video games are designed for entertainment. In fact, I can't think of a single example of a video game designed to change your mind or cause you to do something you wouldn't necessarily already do. Your comparison seems invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can if you like, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that rap music is not intentionally motivational beyond the scope of entertainment. That one piece mentioned that this particular whacko's music behind one of his videos was "let the bodies hit the floor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can if you like

Go on. Show me that the majority of video games are designed to have the same effect as political rhetoric. Political rhetoric is FOR changing minds and bringing about action whilst video games are for entertainment. Any subset of video games which have the same effect are marginal at best.

 

That one piece mentioned that this particular whacko's music behind one of his videos was "let the bodies hit the floor".

Drowning Pool isn't rap.

Edited by ydoaPs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say majority. Here's a general article you can read about games whose primary purpose is not entertainment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_games

 

Drowning Pool isn't rap.

 

No dodging, please. Are you saying that no popular music ever attempts to motivate people outside of the boundaries of entertainment?

 

Getting back to your point, we can include your hair-splitting qualification if you like:

 

The difference is that the purpose of the rhetoric is to draw people to action. It's designed to change your mind or do something you wouldn't necessarily already do. It's not a large leap from violent rhetoric to violent thoughts/feelings. As we all know, thoughts/feelings are the basis for action.

 

So would you support censorship of video games and rap music in cases where their stated purpose is to enact political change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say majority. Here's a general article you can read about games whose primary purpose is not entertainment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_games

So the comparison isn't apt, then? Golly, I thought I already said that.

 

For those who didn't click on the link, it's largely irrelevant.

Serious games are designed for the purpose of solving a problem. Although serious games can be entertaining, their main purpose is to train, investigate, or advertise.

The only thing that even remotely looks relevant is the 'persuasive game' and we are given no indication that this subset is part of the popular gaming market.

 

In fact, that article even says:

Zyda's definition begins with "game" and proceeds from there:

-Game: "a physical or mental contest, played according to specific rules, with the goal of amusing or rewarding the participant."

-Video Game: "a mental contest, played with a computer according to certain rules for amusement, recreation, or winning a stake."

-Serious Game: "a mental contest, played with a computer in accordance with specific rules that uses entertainment to further government or corporate training, education, health, public policy, and strategic communication objectives."

 

Bolding is mine. So, if anyone thinks Pangloss has a point here, go click on the link he provided. Thank you, Pangloss, for refuting yourself.

 

 

Again, I say the comparison is not valid. You're trying to equate an incredibly small subset of a subset of video games with video games in order to put video games on level ground with political rhetoric whose main purpose is changing minds and inciting action.

 

 

No dodging, please. Are you saying that no popular music ever attempts to motivate people outside of the boundaries of entertainment?

I'll let you in on a secret: the purpose of popular music is to make money. They make what the people want to hear. That's why it's common to hear music snobs talking about the crap quality of popular music; like the comedian

. They market the music to certain audiences(
); they don't want to change your mind, they want to feed you what you already want.

 

Now, the song you mentioned, "Bodies" by Drowning Pool, is an example of popular music. In fact, it did really well on the charts. It is an example of a song written to a particular market.

 

Sure some pop artists will write songs occasionally so they can make a political statement, but it is FAR FAR from purpose of the industry. Music is generally for entertainment and labels design their artists towards what people want. It's mostly about economics. That's right kids, blame capitalism for music sucking.

 

Again, it's an invalid comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are video games designed to change people's minds and/or call them to action?

 

Even though the first amendment was intended to protect specifically political speech, I think video games that don't have political aspects to them should still be protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's great, ydoaPs, I guess we agree then that video games and rap music should not be censored regardless of any political statements they contain. Glad to hear it. (rofl)

 

What do you think about the evidence that this guy is more, or at least equally, left-wing than right-wing? Inconvenient for the anti-Palin/anti-tea party crowd, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh it's not that -- I agree that flakey people might draw their motivations from elevated rhetoric, rap music, or violent video games. What I'm saying is that isolated incidents, whatever their motivations, are not indicators of trends. Nor should they be influential on public policy.

 

I'm not going to demand that people watch what they say because some crazy person might go and shoot someone. Crazy people will find a reason to shoot someone.

 

The political rhetoric is bad because it's pointlessly divisive and obstructive, not because it may occassionally lead to a mass murder by someone who would have just found their motivation elsewhere were the rhetoric not so elevated.

 

I agree with the first part, it's just that I think both reasons are valid for not using the rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about the evidence that this guy is more, or at least equally, left-wing than right-wing? Inconvenient for the anti-Palin/anti-tea party crowd, isn't it?

I think it's too early to see. We'll see in the coming days if investigators determine his motivation and what contact he's had with other political groups. People may be tempted to blame it on Palin and her map, but we don't yet know if the guy even knew the map existed, or whether he followed Palin or any other political leader when planning the attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the first part, it's just that I think both reasons are valid for not using the rhetoric.

 

Fair enough. And here's an example of inciting rhetoric right here: "Economist" Paul Krugman is wasting no time blaming conservatives for this incident, in spite of the fact that he appears to have as much left-wing background as right-wing.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/assassination-attempt-in-arizona/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

 

This bit is amusing:

 

I’m going to take down comments on this one; they would need a lot of moderating, because the crazies are coming out in force, and it’s all too likely to turn into a flame war.

 

Gee, Krugman, throw down a match on a gas-soaked woodpile and walk away, why dontcha.

 

-------------------------

 

I think it's too early to see. We'll see in the coming days if investigators determine his motivation and what contact he's had with other political groups. People may be tempted to blame it on Palin and her map, but we don't yet know if the guy even knew the map existed, or whether he followed Palin or any other political leader when planning the attack.

 

Sure, I guess the thing I don't understand is why it matters at all. The pundits are building score cards so that they can throw atrocities at one another as examples of why we should or should not enact health care reform! Does that actually make sense to anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I guess the thing I don't understand is why it matters at all. The pundits are building score cards so that they can throw atrocities at one another as examples of why we should or should not enact health care reform! Does that actually make sense to anyone?

Which pundits are doing this? As far as I know, they're throwing atrocities at one another as examples of why we should or should not paint crosshairs on Congress members who vote the wrong way on health care reform. I haven't seen anyone go "and if we had government-run health care, Giffords would be left to die on the sidewalk!!!!!" or whatever.

 

If it does turn out that Loughner is schizophrenic or delusional, you can't pin blame on anyone. On the other hand, if it turns out he read some (right- or left-wing, either works) pundit shouting "stop the health care bill at all costs!" and went and shot someone to pull it off, well, perhaps the pundit was shouting too hard...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even were that true, those would be isolated examples. Political rhetoric as a whole is designed for that. Generally video games are designed for entertainment. In fact, I can't think of a single example of a video game designed to change your mind or cause you to do something you wouldn't necessarily already do.

 

I don't think that's the point. I don't think any of the violent imagery in political rhetoric by the mainstream politicians is a literal call for violence. But I think it doesn't have to be, for someone to interpret it as such. Same for music and video games — the intent doesn't have to be to incite violence. What matters is the result. The question is does violent rhetoric, music or video actually cause more violence to occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political Rhetoric (Using language effectively to please or persuade) is most certainly designed to change opposing minds, without which elections would be meaningless. Since we STILL live in a free society and we are divided on political/social ideology, that rhetoric or sometimes referred to as campaign speech must remain free to voice. When you speak of drawing people into action, yes it means exactly that, promote your candidate, give money and get out and vote.

 

What Loughner is accused of doing is a crime, a despicable act on his own people but was neither performed from being indoctrinated or influenced by any persons speech, music, game or IMO is most any major felony. I suspect he has been delusional for years about his place in life or society or simply wished his 15 minutes of fame. As Pima County Sheriff Dupnik alluded to several, such tendencies in people were at one time committed for Psychiatric Evaluation, treated and released only when the professional felt safe in society, which is no longer legal, in most cases.

 

Even though the first amendment was intended to protect specifically political speech, I think video games that don't have political aspects to them should still be protected.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic; Ironically what Rep-Giffords read, last Thursday, IMO is all encompassing and includes games, or anything with a political massage. I think you'll find every National Election, there are several Movies, TV Drama's or Documentaries designed and effective toward one or the other major parties.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/Quote]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

 

The question is does violent rhetoric, music or video actually cause more violence to occur? [/Quote]

 

swansont, although not directed at me; IMO>>>NO. Just as I watch many shows, finding myself rooting for the bad guy, playing Cowboys and Indians as a kid in the 40's, or drinking water out of a jigger, I didn't grow up and play the roles, factually married an Indian and I can't remember my last shot of whiskey, though I do drink beer.

 

Encouraging, though I doubt she'll be going back to Congress in the foreseeable future.[/Quote]

 

CR; Ms. Giffords has a long way to go, even before what potential recovery she might have will be known, but the alarming thing to me was the removal of her left skull, to prevent swelling. Normally, as I understand it, this has been done only when swelling had begun and kind of a last resort. The Doctors have explained this as aggressive preventative treatment, but I have my doubts.

 

Nothing would please me more than to see her return to Congress anytime again in her life and if she lives, no doubt will some day, even if it's as a token appearance. But your probably correct "in the foreseeable future"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.