Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

The Words We Say

I've been saying things much like this about the recent shooting, just shorter.
Tags: networking, politics, safety
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 83 comments
...go 3 levels up... Expand
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 14:19:45 UTC 10 years ago

1) It was not Palin that made the "second amendment solutions" remark, it was Sharon angle.

2) Sarah palin has *never* said anything about "killing her oponents"

3) Well, I guess that's it then, you have foreclosed all possibility of reconciliation, you have drawn a line in the sand.

4) I base the statement that he was a leftist on the fact that his close friends *said* that he was, nothing whatever to do with Palin.

5) There is no connection of any kind whatsoever between the deranged shooter and Palin.


You guys should really think about what you are doing here, if you think that the occasional gun metaphor was bad, it was *nothing* compared to what you are using here. You actually SAID that I should be in *gitmo*. Do you really see a way back from this? Do you really not see that it is *you* that has made the rhetoric go insane?
fayanora

fayanora

January 10 2011, 14:37:20 UTC 10 years ago

You sure have some nerve saying our side is the one drawing the line in the sand when your side is the one calling for assassinations and shootings and carrying a bunch of racist signs. The Right started this shit, not the Left.

It was not Palin that made the "second amendment solutions" remark, it was Sharon angle.

Riiiight. And I suppose you're going to claim that this Angle person is the one who owns the website with all the targets and names.

You know what, whatever. Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, whatever. They're all butt-buddies, cut from the same cloth, wanting the same thing. And the depth of my confusion and upset at how anyone can support any of them or their lies is just as deep as the confusion and upset at people who support known serial murderers.

And maybe gitmo is a bit harsh. But whatever, they're domestic terrorists. Whatever we do with terrorists, that's what should be done with them. Because that's what they are. And anyone who thinks otherwise is either delusional or in league with them.
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 14:56:14 UTC 10 years ago

The targets web page was Sarah Palin. Just like Dkos did.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Daily-Kos-Bullseyed-Giffords/2011/01/10/id/382350
Just like half the politicians in office have.
Obama: "they bring a knife, we bring a gun", they punch, we punch back twice as hard"
Heck, Obama called republicans "my enemies"! Do you understand the difficulties of being called an "enemy" by the president?

Regardless of who made the first silly piece of rhetoric, you are the one currently calling for imprisonment for speech. You are the one blaming the actions of an insane person on the speech of the political party you dislike. You are the one calling people names here.

I am in league with Sarah Palin. If you want to put me in prison for that, please, feel free to try to get a law passed that makes it so. Remember that you will be imprisoning roughly 1/2 the country. Remember that we will vote against you and will not be happy that the attempt was made.



The main point bears repeating. This was a lunatic! He was clinically insane. The rhetoric, regardless of the source had *nothing* to do with what happened. It is just as likely that the neighbors dog told him to kill her as it is that Palin did so.
fayanora

fayanora

January 10 2011, 15:19:22 UTC 10 years ago

Obama: "they bring a knife, we bring a gun", they punch, we punch back twice as hard"
Heck, Obama called republicans "my enemies"! Do you understand the difficulties of being called an "enemy" by the president?

Why do you lie so? Do you get off on it?
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 15:28:22 UTC 10 years ago

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html

Okay, the second one was a white house spokesman. I stand not corrected.
fayanora

Apology

fayanora

January 10 2011, 15:35:40 UTC 10 years ago Edited:  January 10 2011, 15:35:54 UTC

Listen, I want to apologize. While I am am truly confused that anyone could support such violent people, this is not the best time to be discussing this. It's late and I'm cranky, and one or more of my myriad mental issues was sneaking up on me. The part of me that is paranoid and terrified of scary things like angry people being violent has been freaking out for several hours today and I'm just now becoming aware of it. Oh, and I think it was tag-teaming with the part of me that fears and distrusts everyone, and is asocial (and possibly antisocial) to boot. So I go beddy-bye now. Once again, I'm sorry.
ford_prefect42

Re: Apology

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 15:38:07 UTC 10 years ago

Accepted of course. Hope you feel better soon.
haikujaguar

haikujaguar

January 10 2011, 15:04:22 UTC 10 years ago

I don't understand why you are choosing, consciously, to believe that all Republicans are domestic terrorists, as you said in your first comment. Do you think I'm a domestic terrorist?
fayanora

fayanora

January 10 2011, 15:20:05 UTC 10 years ago

Not all of them, just the damned Tea Partiers.
haikujaguar

haikujaguar

January 10 2011, 15:27:33 UTC 10 years ago

Why? From the stated objectives of the Tea Party (from Wikipedia: "It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] lower taxes,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]"), I'm in sympathy with them. Actually, the people who have said they hate Republicans for their pork-barrel, social-Christian-enforcing agenda should like the Tea Party, as this is a lot of what the original platform of the party was like before it got blurry.

Is it because they're angry? Should we ban anger from the discourse? I'm all for that, but it would wipe out a lot of liberal equivalents too.
fayanora

fayanora

January 10 2011, 15:30:28 UTC 10 years ago

It's because they're being VIOLENT and THREATENING PEOPLE.

But whatever. I'm tired, and feeling weird. I think it's mental issues. So I apologize.
haikujaguar

haikujaguar

January 10 2011, 15:38:34 UTC 10 years ago

Keep in mind that Obama has said the following things (from a list compiled by someone else when I was trying to remember them all):

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to Democrats: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to Democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Our own president regularly uses violent language—really violent language—to describe what should be done to people like me who disagree with him or didn't vote for him. That frightens and appalls me, particularly from someone who claimed we have to work together, non-partisan, to accomplish our goals.

The President. Who could, if he wanted, just toss me in jail without any explanations or reasons. Or my spouse. Or my family. Or anyone.

If we're going to start with getting rid of the violent and threatening rhetoric, could we start at the top? Couldn't Obama set an example? I bet that would be a big deal. But he doesn't. Palin's not the only one using martial language.
fayanora

fayanora

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
fayanora

fayanora

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
fayanora

fayanora

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
haikujaguar

haikujaguar

10 years ago

  • New comment
haikujaguar

haikujaguar

10 years ago

  • New comment
ysabetwordsmith

...

ysabetwordsmith

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

Re: ...

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

Re: Hmm...

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
siege

siege

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

10 years ago

  • New comment
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 15:31:29 UTC 10 years ago

Can't say that I am in favor of banning anger from political discourse. Too much line drawing (what is "anger"), what penalties should there be, etcetera. Besides, freedom of speech and all that.

I can definitely support *social pressures* against angry discourse.
haikujaguar

haikujaguar

January 10 2011, 15:40:06 UTC 10 years ago

Much apologies. I forget that when I say 'ban' my assumption is social, not legal, because I believe in using social pressure to enforce proper behavior, while other people believe in subjecting all behavior to legal arbitration and regulation. :P
ysabetwordsmith

Thoughts

ysabetwordsmith

10 years ago

  • New comment
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

January 10 2011, 19:28:55 UTC 10 years ago

>>Is it because they're angry? Should we ban anger from the discourse? I'm all for that, but it would wipe out a lot of liberal equivalents too.<<

I wouldn't ban anger, but I would strongly discourage irrationality and violent languages. It's too easy to whip people into a frenzy, and then somebody gets hurt. Extremists tend to aim for that; I don't think it's a desirable way to run a society.

Good decisions most often derive from good data, careful consideration, and well-balanced arguments. Poor data, logical fallacies, and hateful dialog tend to result in bad decisions with ineffective or destructive results. You have to balance what you feel with what you know, because your own emotions can get in the way of your goals if you let them run away with you. If people are just screaming at each other, they are unlikely to get any good out of it. I think they miss a lot of common ground that way.

My main beef with the Tea Party is its heavy use of logical fallacies such as ad hominem attacks and distraction techniques. The result is that people have a very poor idea what's actually going on. For example, there was the TP protester who claimed to be against "socialized medicine" but then said "don't you touch my Medicare." That program IS provided by the government, but the protester -- after listening to TP presentations on the topic of health care -- apparently didn't know that.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing over what is wrong or what should be done to fix it. That can be frustrating when they don't agree with me and I think their plan would be bad for me -- but it doesn't generally make me feel like nobody's driving this bus. What makes me frantic is when I see people, and especially the public en masse, making decisions based on emotion or religion without regard to facts, or handling facts carelessly enough to introduce major misconceptions. That way lies disaster. If you've got your facts straight and your arguments are rational, then if the solution goes wrong, at least you can troubleshoot it and find out why. If the facts and arguments aren't reliable -- and especially if there's an expectation that people shouldn't criticize authority -- then it's difficult or impossible to back up, analyze what went wrong, and fix it.