will there now be a political cost for violent images

[Truthmatters]

I know it means nothing to you that a democratic rep was targeted.

I understand that , I understand to you it means nothing.


That doesnt matter now.

Its in the ether.

A violent image will NO LONGER have a good impact on campaign numbers.

What you try to pin on me dosent matter.

It is now in the cultural memory.


Its part of the American collective mind.

No one will want their (OK very few) candidate to use this stuff because it will take the discussion places that dont help the candidate..


its over, its done.


Those that persist in using this imagery will pay a price because NO ONE wants to think about this discussion.

It will be a losing tactic.


man I just keep making myself feel better.

The best part is it is VERY likely excactly what the atmosphere will be for quite some time to come.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Good for you , kinda sad to profit off of death though.

I know its not your fault, you are merely providing a product people feel a need for.


I have to admitt I am feeling much better now that I have realised the impact of this horrible thing will have some good to give society.


I feel like it will really help the victims on their path of grief to hear fewer of these types of references.

The smart politicains wont even use them.

No it won't and I find it odd that you pretend to know what those people are going through.

Jared Loughner was a nutter looney tuney nutbar with extra nuts. Political imagery was not the cause of his rampage, his short-circuited brain was.

In retrospect, it's easy to see the evidence that Tucson, Ariz., shooter Jared Loughner was mentally unstable. . . .

. . . it seems that Pima Community College (and Loughner's classmates and instructors) didn't do enough to recognize at least six warning signs in Loughner:

1. For months, he showed a classic symptom of psychosis: disorganized thoughts and speech. He routinely made irrelevant and nonsensical comments in classes. On one test, according to the Washington Post, he wrote, "Eat + Sleep + Brush Teeth = Math." On another test, he wrote, "Mayhem Fest!!!"

2. He showed another symptom of psychosis, or at the very least, an inability to function in social situations. One example from the New York Times: he enthusiastically read a poem in class in which he discussed touching himself in the shower.

3. He showed signs of paranoia, telling a classmate that U.S. currency was worthless and that the government was seeking to control people through grammar. He also became interested in a concept he called "conscious dreaming" (a concept at the heart of the mind-bending thriller Inception).

4. He regularly smoked marijuana, and while there is only a small correlation between having a mental illness and committing violence, that correlation becomes much more significant when mental illness is combined with drug use, according to John Monahan, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia School of Law.

5. Several classmates said Loughner scared them. One of them even wrote e-mails in June saying she was afraid he would bring a gun to class. A teacher worried every time he had his back to Loughner that the student would pull a gun on him.

6. Loughner had five contacts with campus police, although it is not clear what behavior led to those contacts.

Hindsight is perfect, of course, but all institutions need to monitor students and employees who are consistently acting strangely. There was arguably enough evidence for Pima authorities to go to a judge and have Loughner involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, as Virginia Tech did with Cho. At the very least, the college could have required Loughner to check in with a counselor on a daily or weekly basis.

Read more: Loughner's Mental Illness: Six Disturbing Warning Signs - TIME



You're nothing but a partisan hack.

 

[hjmick]

Where did I try to "pin" anything on you? Oh, that's right, I didn't.

And FYI, it means something to me anytime anyone is shot by a nutball. Political affiliation means nothing to me.

 

[Truthmatters]

zoom what are you areguing about?

I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Yes I do FEEL that less violent imagery will ease some of the pain for the victims as they travel the road of grief.

Note you have no real arguement to tell me what I feel.

What you or I think is a drop in the bucket.

Im talking about the EFFECTS.

This tactic will no longer have the same impact for gaining votes that it used to have before this horrible event.


The game has changed

 

[Ernie S.]

I never said he did.

I think most Americans will now think of gun imagery in the political arena as a NON vote getter.
it will turn more people from a candidate than it garners them

Try banning guns and test your theory.

 

[Zoom-boing]

zoom what are you areguing about?

I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Yes I do FEEL that less violent imagery will ease some of the pain for the victims as they travel the road of grief.

Note you have no real arguement to tell me what I feel.

What you or I think is a drop in the bucket.

Im talking about the EFFECTS.

This tactic will no longer have the same impact for gaining votes that it used to have before this horrible event.


The game has changed

POLITICAL IMAGERY DIDN'T CAUSE HIS RAMPAGE, HIS MENTAL ILLNESS DID.

Stop being such a hack.

 

[Truthmatters]

I never said he did.

I think most Americans will now think of gun imagery in the political arena as a NON vote getter.
it will turn more people from a candidate than it garners them

Try banning guns and test your theory.

Why do you keep pretending I said something I didnt say?

 

[Truthmatters]

zoom what are you areguing about?

I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Yes I do FEEL that less violent imagery will ease some of the pain for the victims as they travel the road of grief.

Note you have no real arguement to tell me what I feel.

What you or I think is a drop in the bucket.

Im talking about the EFFECTS.

This tactic will no longer have the same impact for gaining votes that it used to have before this horrible event.


The game has changed

POLITICAL IMAGERY DIDN'T CAUSE HIS RAMPAGE, HIS MENTAL ILLNESS DID.

Stop being such a hack.

where in there did I try to convince you it did?

 

[Zoom-boing]

zoom what are you areguing about?

I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Yes I do FEEL that less violent imagery will ease some of the pain for the victims as they travel the road of grief.

Note you have no real arguement to tell me what I feel.

What you or I think is a drop in the bucket.

Im talking about the EFFECTS.

This tactic will no longer have the same impact for gaining votes that it used to have before this horrible event.


The game has changed

POLITICAL IMAGERY DIDN'T CAUSE HIS RAMPAGE, HIS MENTAL ILLNESS DID.

Stop being such a hack.

where in there did I try to convince you it did?

I beg to differ with you , I think this is a game changer momment.

I dont think this will be a useful tactic anymore.

All this fighting about it has made some headway.

I think it will give some solace to the vitims of this horrible incident.

I think it will make their path of grief a little softer.

I am really begining to feel much better about my country this momment

You're trying your damnest to blame political imagery on the shooting. You are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Political imagery is, of course, part of the mileu, the back drop, of what happened. To discount the negative effect that imagery now has on many, if not most, if not the great majority, of Americans would be a sad marketing decision.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We should ban ALL violent images. Let's start with this horribly violent one.

I don't know about you but I find this unacceptable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We should ban ALL violent images. Let's start with this horribly violent one.

I don't know about you but I find this unacceptable.

I see a sophisticate and nuanced mind at work here!

 

[Truthmatters]

POLITICAL IMAGERY DIDN'T CAUSE HIS RAMPAGE, HIS MENTAL ILLNESS DID.

Stop being such a hack.

where in there did I try to convince you it did?

I beg to differ with you , I think this is a game changer momment.

I dont think this will be a useful tactic anymore.

All this fighting about it has made some headway.

I think it will give some solace to the vitims of this horrible incident.

I think it will make their path of grief a little softer.

I am really begining to feel much better about my country this momment

You're trying your damnest to blame political imagery on the shooting. You are wrong.

The really sad thing is this statement shows how very little attention you pay to what is actually said.

I have said that the gunman caused this.

I have also said that words and images matter and can influence people and crazy people are easily influenced.


I cant help that you do not want to understand anything I say.

I have no control over what you understand.

warned MONTHS ago that some nutter would be influenced by the sharp tone and violent images, I begged for people to talk like adults.



You dont believe it influences anyone then fine.

I get to think what I want and have thought this for many years.

In the end it doesnt matter what either of us think personally.

The reality is this whole discussion is now pretty much history and every time someone puts a gun barrel site image or a target anywhere near another candidate the person will lose vote share.

the people have had these images seared into their memories with this incident.

It is no longer a winning tactic no matter how much you dont want that to be true

 

[Jroc]

with all the rants on both sides about what it means nothing can convince the opposite side what you pretend they dont really believe.

When the rubber meets the road NO ONE , neither side, will benifit in a political way for continuing to use such language.


I really think this is going to end up being the case.


It gave me some real hope when it occured to me.

Notice this incident had nothing to do with political rhetoric, Yet this is were the libs want to take it and we fall right in line and have to defend ourselves based on this false premise

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Good for you , kinda sad to profit off of death though.

I know its not your fault, you are merely providing a product people feel a need for.


I have to admitt I am feeling much better now that I have realised the impact of this horrible thing will have some good to give society.


I feel like it will really help the victims on their path of grief to hear fewer of these types of references.

The smart politicains wont even use them.

The only people that profits from death are undertakers and of course the government.

 

[rikules]

In political speach?


Will it remain a useful tool or will the people who try to use it lose votes and support?


I think yes

democrats and liberals will be punished for it

republicans and conservatives will be rewarded for it


if dems/libs do it they will be denounced for their hate speech


repubs and cons will use it even more and exploit as "free speech"

 

[Truthmatters]

I dont think so, I think it will be a loser tactic fore them too.


No one wants to think about these victims during the next election, fi you use them the image of a child lying dead on a parking lot will come to voters minds.

Even the right leaning voters will have this happen to them, this tacitic is now inseverably tied to this incident.

Its bad marketing to tie your image to a horrible event, these images are now tied to a horrible event.


Aint that awsome?

 

[Truthmatters]

Good for you , kinda sad to profit off of death though.

I know its not your fault, you are merely providing a product people feel a need for.


I have to admitt I am feeling much better now that I have realised the impact of this horrible thing will have some good to give society.


I feel like it will really help the victims on their path of grief to hear fewer of these types of references.

The smart politicains wont even use them.

The only people that profits from death are undertakers and of course the government.

Guns are legal and a perfectly reasonable product to sell in the US.

The fact is it is likely that a gun you sold ended a life at some point.

It is by NO means your fault.

its just true.

 

[Liability]

In its OP, truthdoesn'tmattertoheratall asks the stupid question, "will there now be a political cost for violent images?"

The answer, obviously, is "yes:"

We will have to listen to more of truthdoesn'tmattertoheratall's prattling bullshit whining.

 

[mudwhistle]

with all the rants on both sides about what it means nothing can convince the opposite side what you pretend they dont really believe.

When the rubber meets the road NO ONE , neither side, will benifit in a political way for continuing to use such language.


I really think this is going to end up being the case.


It gave me some real hope when it occured to me.

Yes.....the use of the following words, phrases, and images will be considered hate-speech:

War-room, number one with a bullet, fire, fire-stick, bang bang, conflict, attack, target, cross-hairs, enemy, hostage-takers, ricochet, bust a cap in your ass, gun, weapon, defeat, shooter computor games, gunman, gunwoman, gunny, accidental discharge, bring a gun to a knife-fight, shoot the shit, drinking shooters, shoot from the hip, give em both barrels, reload, gun show, report, crossfire, firefight, jumping the gun, Colt 45, the right to bare arms, she/he must be loaded, fire extinguisher, recoil, magazine, cartridge, casing, barrel, trigger, sniper, combatant, shoot your wad, arms, ammunition, and anything Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck say.