Right Wing Hero Shoots Up Liberal Church
POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Thursday, August 14, 2008 03:08
VIEWED: 9766
PAGE 4 of 13
So AntonyT, YOU PEOPLE don't believe
a systematic demonizing of a people can have a real effect on the population at large?
In NAZI Germany there were just a lot of individuals behaving badly? It wasn't a general dehumanization of the jews that made it easier for them to do the things they did to them?
Or what about RWANDA where two ethnic groups were consistently pitted against each other by propaganda making one seem stupider, baser, less human than the other. MOre individuals behaving badly?
..............
That said, your point about rap is taken.
But rap is "entertainment", and punditry is often not taken as entertainment, even though that is what it is.
And rap is frankly, more diverse.
ON the other hand, punditry that suggests violence as a solution, and a certain group as the problem for all of our woes, is far more systematic. If you say something loud enough and long enough it becomes true, and that's a whole lot of people saying the same things, to a wide audience, many of whom have no other information inlets.
You honestly going to say this has no effect?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been too busy to reply, but here's some more , from the same source, again edited somewhat:
"Adkisson targeted the church, [Investigator Steve] Still wrote 'because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.'
"Adkisson told Still that 'he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.'"
Carol Smallwood, a longtime acquaintance of Adkisson’s, said he hates “'blacks, gays and anyone different from him,” ... In a four-page note Adkisson left in his car, he explicitly noted his hate for the “liberal movement” — the Unitarian Universalist church is well known for its liberal stances on homosexuality, civil rights, opposition to war, women’s rights, and multiculturalism.
The right has already begun and will continue to claim that Adkisson is just a crazy nut, is not really a conservative (or is actually a liberal), that his stated motive of carrying out right-wing ideology means nothing, and that it is “inappropriate” to discuss politics in relation to such a heinous crime.
Obviously, this merely scratches the surface of what issues daily from the mouths and keyboards of right-wing pundits.
Meanwhile, back at FOX, they have imposed a near media blackout of this story, despite the involvement of its two biggest stars. As of 9:28pm PT, a search of the foxnews.com website turned up not one story about the shooting. Neither O’Reilly nor Hannity mentioned the shooting on the Monday or Tuesday after the shooting. In contrast, both O’Reilly and Hannity devoted large blocks of their shows to the Virginia Tech shootings, and FOX did stories about it around the clock. But when their books helped provide the justification for politically motivated murder, Hannity and O'Reilly apparently can’t be bothered to address it, or even acknowledge that it happened.
Even though FOX won’t cover this story, it cannot be allowed to fade because no matter what conservatives will say, this shooting in Knoxville says something very important about the right wing and the messages its most prominent, powerful, most highly-paid voices are sending to millions of Americans.
Now, these are MY WORDS, not the fraudulent, propagandistic, character assassination forgeries created by other posters to this thread:
While some posters question the accuracy of ONE Quote, they don't have anything to say about the rest.
Reminds me of the OJ trial, when Johnny Cocharane said that if the jury disbelieved one thing a witness said they could ignore his entire testimony. So when the chauffer said he saw OJ sneaking down the street but was innaccurate on the time by 1 or 2 minutes, they could throw out the basic fact, OJ sneaking, because the guy had the time wrong by the error of his watch, in spite of the fact that cell phone records showed an accurate time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
The responsibility for action always lies with the individual. The only exception to this is mental incompetence.
The 'you people' problem, the one you are complaining about (liberals were 'you people' to the man that performed these acts) is the same thing you are doing. You complain about liberals being dehumanized by 'the right,' and then proceed to perform the exact same function.
When you equate 'the right' with the worst actions and comments taken by their membership, it is the same as equating 'liberals' with the worst actions and comments taken by their membership.
Any argument which uses 'you people', be it theirs or yours, is detestable. You should revile at using it, as it is the very thing you are purportedly complaining about.
The process of dehumanizing someone is twofold.
Step One - LUMP THEM TOGETHER.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bullshit,
because at the end of the day I NEVER advocate violence as a solution. And I don't consider all people with conservative values scum. The people manufacturing outrage and advocating violence are not the party at large, but they are essentially rallyers for certain agendas that suit that party's goals.
If a pattern exists I think its important to point it out.
because the thing I'M sick of is listening to the media when these topics come up, anything that involves left or right, and then their big solution being "WEll they're all doing it",
like that makes everything even, and there's no point in trying to ascertain if there really is a difference. Why believe anybody ever? Why pay attention to any news source, because as they said on the TV, they're all bad. They couldn't convince you they were better, but at least they can convince you that there's no point in seeking out something better, with a higher tone.
The facts don't bear that out dude. Why act like both sides are the same, when they are not?
"you people" "them people", it's an unfortunate convenience. We can't write five page sentences every time we try to talk about topics, as qualifiers for EXACTLY who we are talking about every time. I'm sorry the simplicity of it offends you...if you have a better solution I'd like to hear it.
..............
also, what do you mean the responsibility always lies with the individual...
that you're in the camp that morality is embued within you by some higher power?
That every cannibal is morally reprehensible because they were raised in a tribe of cannibals and believe that is the only way?
Paradigms have a lot to do with what we think is acceptible behavior, and thus, how we behave.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
Quote:
The statement, the argument, is inherently fallacious. The idea seems to imply that 'you people' are more inclined to killing sprees than 'our people' because 'your rhetoric turns people into psychopaths.'
Good point.
You will, however note, that no matter how sarcastic I put it - I am always careful to be VERY specific on the target of such commentary, insult or slagging.
To wit: Straussian Neocon proto-fascists.
(i.e. PNAC, Clean Break Signatories)
These folk are ALREADY murderous sociopaths, callin em that is just statin a fact.
And since they are successful in a society that breeds, reveres and rewards them (with a token slap on the hand here and there for forms sake) - dimbulbs who don't seem to realize that a critical key to their success is being born into wealthy and politically powerful families try to emulate them.
Some take it to extremes, and the encouragement from folks who should know better doesn't help it any.
It's pointless to deny the obvious, that these things DO influence peoples actions because people in our society and education system are conditioned TO respond to that influence instead of thinking for themselves.
It still does come to an individual standpoint though, at least with me - if you've done no harm to me or mine, imma dislike you from an emotional distance and leave you alone....
It's when you DO THINGS THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT ME (like Engler fucking the cab industry on his way out of office, which crippled my ability to make a buck) that imma take it kinda personal and retaliate in the manner I feel proper.
And stabbin me in the wallet via the Taxman, to finance shit that directly impacts me in a negative fashion is about the fastest way in the universe to piss me off.
Believe me, for what I paid in gas today.... I'm all for removing our CinC, even on the flimsiest excuse, Billy humped one intern, Bush humped us all.
So yeah, it's individual, hell, to put not too fine a point on it, ya might call it personal - that's MY freakin money....
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Some counterpoints:
"I don't consider all people with conservative values scum."
Then perhaps you need to define 'Right Wing' for me. Because I thought you were referring to people with conservative values. I'm sure a lot of people thought that, too.
"that you're in the camp that morality is embued within you by some higher power?"
Imbued as I am with the ability to reason, and reasong that morality exists for logical reasons of reciprocity, I guess you could say I think morality is an intrinsic trait amongst reasoning people. But that's an argument for another thread (feel free to start one.)
"That every cannibal is morally reprehensible because they were raised in a tribe of cannibals and believe that is the only way?"
Reprehensible and responsible are different things. Even in his own society, the cannibal is responsible for what he does and who he tries to eat. If he tries to eat someone and they kill him, are you honestly saying that he isn't responsible for his actions and the consequences? That he didn't know what he was doing?
""you people" "them people", it's an unfortunate convenience. We can't write five page sentences every time we try to talk about topics, as qualifiers for EXACTLY who we are talking about every time. I'm sorry the simplicity of it offends you...if you have a better solution I'd like to hear it."
I'd recommend not using terms that you are positive include people who you are not trying to condemn. 'Right Wing' is a heck of a lot of people. A lot of people who don't condone violence against people for their political beliefs. A lot of people who would find the commentary of these political entertainers repugnant. Because once you include them in your ire, they may feel compelled to defend themselves against your slander, and that may put them in a defensive posture right next to people they'd normally distance themselves from.
I used to watch a lot of cartoons and read a lot of comics. I remember Bugs Bunny cartoons with buck-toothed monstrosities that were meant to represent the Japanese. I remember rediculous charicatures of Japanese people in superhero comic books.
I also remember listening to how we rounded up every Japanese person in the country and stuck them into concentration camps. That's what you get when you create a 'Them.' Dehumanizing works in both directions, and you can become as guilty of it as the people you claim to loathe.
Just because you think one side is worse than the other doesn't give you permission to behave badly. I'm sorry you think it's Bullshit to say so.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Actually the British confessed to war crimes in Iraq and the Americans there have done worse.
Can't wait to see Bush in the Hague.
Sure they did.
Don't hold your breath on Bush an the Hague thing.
Not gonna happen.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AntonyT
except that you may have missed in my original post where I said at the very beginning, I don't believe most right wingers would consider this guy a hero. The whole point of my post was to direct attention to a certain media influence.
I'll grant that right after that I didn't make a clear enough distinction about whether I meant all right wingers, or just those numerous voices that apparently resonate with right-wingers enough that they continue to play. There's a chicken and an egg question here that I think is worth exploring.
..............
Woah, I'm not sure how your argument about Japanese internment camps is a counterpoint to my argument. It seems like we're in agreement. media influences opinions...huh...
FDR was a liberal, true - but what he did was decidedly un-liberal, and I challenge you to find many conservatives of the time that were at odds with the decision.
and that wasn't me that did that, and I would never have advocated that, nor would I advocate something similar for republicans(its just ridiculous that somehow talking about tactics is the same as saying they are simian or something), unless I had a different mindset than I do today. It seems kind of abusive to say that I can't even point out a group for labeling and targetting others, because all of a sudden that makes me a 'labeler.'
From now on I'd better be careful about how I malign the KKK, maybe some of their members don't advocate violence on blacks...maybe some of them just think they should be brought back to their own country...
the reality is certain symbols start to stand for something, and from my vantage, republican punditry today is starting to stand for something hateful.
Where we continue to disagree is that you think patterns are unimportant, that we don't need a gestalt sense of things.
I do agree that when we look at patterns we shouldn't automatically malign everybody loosely connected,
but I don't agree just as a random example that we should not look at race when it comes to poverty. Once we do look at race, we may come to vastly different conclusions, but race obviously has an impact, and shouldn't just plain be ignored.
Party affiliation, I'm sorry to say does seem to have a different affinity for tactics.
I have drawn no conclusions as to republicans in general over the population at large. I have drawn conclusions about their speakers.
If more lefties talked like that I think we might see more right wing churches getting shot up, because there are ideologues in both parties....people that are more about team than truth.
On the other hand it's worth considering that such speakers don't resonate so effectively with liberals, and could never get the same kind of foot-hold that so many hate speakers on the other side manage to gain.
I don't think at any point i've drawn a conclusion as to which of these is true, but I don't think it should be off limits discussing these issues.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Some additional responses follow:
"Woah, I'm not sure how your argument about Japanese internment camps is a counterpoint to my argument. It seems like we're in agreement. media influences opinions...huh..."
Of course media influences opinions. That's the very purpose of propaganda. I do not feel, however, that the individual becomes any less responsible for his actions simply because he saw a television or radio broadcast. In essence, I do not believe being part of a mob shields the individual from their proverbial sins. Blame the propagandist for what they said, and blame the criminal for what they did, respectively.
"FDR was a liberal, true - but what he did was decidedly un-liberal, and I challenge you to find many conservatives of the time that were at odds with the decision."
I don't think it matters what FDR was beyond President and Afraid. He was alone in being President, but not alone in being Afraid.
"It seems kind of abusive to say that I can't even point out a group for labeling and targetting others, because all of a sudden that makes me a 'labeler.'
From now on I'd better be careful about how I malign the KKK, maybe some of their members don't advocate violence on blacks...maybe some of them just think they should be brought back to their own country..."
This is a bad analogy. The KKK is a much more narrowly defined organization with a much narrower belief system than the 'Right Wing.' Which is, you know, probably a third of the U.S. population. As for 'Right Wing Pundits' I think there are probably more of them than we can count on all our fingers and toes. I can't believe all of them say such hateful things. I'm doubtful that even most of them do, but I don't see how we can know. Most every town has a political radio station with a right wing advocate of some kind, I would think. I doubt either of us has a good idea of what they are all saying.
"Where we continue to disagree is that you think patterns are unimportant, that we don't need a gestalt sense of things."
Patterns can be important, but they can also be misused. Or is Profiling a good idea?
"I do agree that when we look at patterns we shouldn't automatically malign everybody loosely connected,"
I'm glad to hear this.
"but I don't agree just as a random example that we should not look at race when it comes to poverty. Once we do look at race, we may come to vastly different conclusions, but race obviously has an impact, and shouldn't just plain be ignored."
All right. Don't ignore things. Just adjust the size of your brush and the color of your paint to accommodate the differences in the grain, eh?
"Party affiliation, I'm sorry to say does seem to have a different affinity for tactics."
I'm not convinced that party affiliation automatically inclines someone towards particular tactics. I really hope people are more complicated than that.
"I have drawn no conclusions as to republicans in general over the population at large. I have drawn conclusions about their speakers."
Best single them out, as I've pointed out there are a lot of speakers, and we don't even know what percentage of them are committing such infractions.
"On the other hand it's worth considering that such speakers don't resonate so effectively with liberals, and could never get the same kind of foot-hold that so many hate speakers on the other side manage to gain."
I'm fairly sure I've heard of radical liberal organizations such as Ecological Terrorists and Animal Rights Terrorists who resonate quite well with hate speech, given the proper motivators. I feel strongly that the majority of liberals reject such behavior, and even groups with similar goals abhor some of the tactics these people employ. I believe the same thing about conservatives or 'Right Wingers,' putting the majority of them far from any nutcase or nutcases who choose to do harm.
"I don't think at any point i've drawn a conclusion as to which of these is true, but I don't think it should be off limits dis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If more lefties talked like that I think we might see more right wing churches getting shot up, because there are ideologues in both parties....people that are more about team than truth.
I doubt it. Remember, the lefties are - in general terms here; don't wanna go labeling anybody - pretty anti-gun. They might protest, or write a really stinging letter to the editor, but they're not likely to shoot up anything that doesn't come in a syringe. :)
Of course, in pointing that out, I also point out part of Anthony's point, too, about why painting a group with such broad brushstrokes can be a danger. How so? Because I'm pretty darned left-leaning in my ideology AND I really enjoy shooting guns. Yup, as the Fun-Lovin' Criminals would say, "Stick 'em up, punk, I'm the gun-lovin' liberal."
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME