In Defense of Inflamed Rhetoric

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Two Thumbs, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    The*awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

    By Jack Shafer


    The attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and the killing of six innocents outside a Tucson Safeway has bolstered the ongoing argument that when speaking of things political, we should all avoid using inflammatory rhetoric and violent imagery.Just wander through some threads here.

    The lead spokesman for the anti-inflammatory movement, however, was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, whose jurisdiction includes Tucson. Said Dupnik at a Jan. 8 press conference in answer to questions about the criminal investigation:

    I'd just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they are—how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths, about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry. This is the inflammed rhetoric that he is talking about. He's guilty of what he accuses others of.

    Embedded in Sheriff Dupnik's ad hoc wisdom were several assumptions. First, that strident, anti-government political views can be easily categorized as vitriolic, bigoted, and prejudicial. Second, that those voicing strident political views are guilty of issuing Manchurian Candidate-style instructions to commit murder and mayhem to the "unbalanced." Third, that the Tucson shooter was inspired to kill by political debate or by Sarah Palin's "target" map or other inflammatory outbursts. Fourth, that we should calibrate our political speech in such a manner that we do not awaken the Manchurian candidates among us.

    And, fifth, that it's a cop's role to set the proper dimensions of our political debate. Hey, Dupnik, if you've got spare time on your hands, go write somebody a ticket.

    Sheriff Dupnik's political sermon came before any conclusive or even circumstantial proof had been offered that the shooter had been incited by anything except the gas music from Jupiter playing inside his head. Could not have been said better.

    The great miracle of American politics is that although it can tend toward the cutthroat and thuggish, it is almost devoid of genuine violence outside of a few scuffles and busted lips now and again. With the exception of Saturday's slaughter, I'd wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts of physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics. That's true. We have a court room in the stadium complete with judge and drunk tank. Makes me swell with pride.

    Any call to cool "inflammatory" speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power. As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."

    Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me.
    Freedom, warts and all.



    blue is my input. bold and underlines added


    I don't normally agree with Slate. But this is dead on the money imo.
     
  2. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    sheer stupidity is alive and well in Amurka.
     
  3. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    It's an interesting counterpoint to the POV I have taken, Two Thumbs.

    I wonder though....what is the value of violent speech? Why should we accept its use by our public figures?
     
  4. bodecea
    Online

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    89,208
    Thanks Received:
    10,388
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,717
    Way too much money to be made for this to stop.
     
  5. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Sadly, I suspect this is fairly accurate. Who's going to watch a FOX commentator whose speech is civil?
     
  6. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    You don't have to. And they, or anyone else does not "need" to stop.

    If a pol uses bullseyes, big red exes, you are free to not vote for that person, and express why.

    It's freedom of speach. We gave that right a small cut a few years back by calling things hate speech, and making it criminal. The intent has been ignored, and it's used as a weapon against many.

    but now that we are used to the lose of that freedom, another cut to free speach. Don't use symbols or rhetorric. Who gets to deside what's what and when?

    NTY. Even when I have to stand there and listen to people calling me names, they have the right to make asses of them selves.
     
  7. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    utter bullshit.

    there may be a valid argument that vitriolic bombast serves some useful purpose, like stoking sentiments toward our founding revolution.

    But this argument and your cheesy, dishonest presentation are not such an argument.
     
  8. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    I do not favor new laws limiting speech, Two Thumbs. I just favor more reasoned and mature political discourse.
     
  9. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,754
    Thanks Received:
    3,044
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,784
    No one has to watch or listen to anyone.


    Turn the damned channel if you don't like what on.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    True, we expect mudslinging in our campaigns and vote for who was better at it.

    lets not get confused, this kind of stuff has gone on since before the written word.

    If I recall my American History class; There was a Senator that didn't like what another was saying so he beat him with a cane.

    Was he arrested? No
    Kicked out? No
    Censored? No

    Other Senators sent him canes as gifts with the names of other Senators they wanted him to beat.


    The only thing truly new about this is that a child was killed.


    There's a special place waiting for him in hell.
     

Share This Page