Shooting of Congresswoman in Tucson

[Cerin]

We don't want to tar all of Lobsterland with this one guy's brush, do we?

[vison]

You can't blame the nice folks of Maine for that, axordil.

They didn't all vote for the guy.

You would think, in this day and age, that even a dolt like that would realize that EVERY word and act he commits in public (and a lot in private) are going to come back and bite him in the butt.

Just as if a Giant Lobster got loose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the folks in Maine don't have one big enough, there are couple in the museum in Weymouth, Nova Scotia.

[axordil]

In another life, I used to summer in Maine. I like the place, generally, and their economy hasn't been all the great for years, so I understand creeping desparation. OTOH, he is the face of their state government...for now.

[SirDennis]

While it was presumptuous for VtF to argue against what your motives may have been, the fact remains that the words we choose paint a picture, whether we like it or not.

Precisely. I needed to paint a picture of a dire problem, with dire, dire consequences if it were not handled correctly. I think I did well, considering how lame analogies often are.

As you have stated a few times now. The fact remains that, in spite of your intentions, the picture you painted was not limited to describing "the problem." I believe that is what VtF was trying to say, and I agree with him. It is not that far of a stretch, nor a slight against your ability to express ideas.

Though tedious, this side debate touches on one of the themes of this thread: it encapsulates the idea that the flavour of public discourse may be partly to blame for the actions of some. We have little control over how our words will be perceived by everyone. But being aware of the filters an audience brings to table and the feelings/actions words may inspire is still the responsibility of the speaker. It is beyond careless to use violent rhetoric if violence is not your goal, or even a means to a goal. Just as it is careless to pepper a post with insults unless you mean insult. At the very least, it is no way to win a debate.

For the other, while I agreed with your original comment -- the one that tipped off this side debate -- that agreement is being undermined by you behaving like a douche.

Surely we don't allow the word 'douche' here?

I suppose it would depend on the context in which it was used.

[Cerin]

Sir Dennis, I will reply to you in the Nan Elmoth forum. I think further discussion of my remarks here would be a distraction to this thread.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm somewhat reluctant to exercise shirriff/marshal/thain powers in the middle of a debate that I am involved in, but I will point out that neither the words twat nor douche are really appropriate here, though I think the former is far worse (and SirDennis also has the excuse of being much less familiar with our standards). I will ask that everyone please be careful with their language.

Beyond that I will add that SirDennis very accurately expresses the point that I was trying to make.

[vison]

As I said elsewhere, it is very ironic - extremely ironic - that Mrs. Palin felt so wounded by the words used against her.

She and others of her ilk have made accusations as bad or even worse. Using the term "death panels" is but one sorry example.

Will they stop to think about it?

This is true for some "on the other side". Not to the same extent, as Cerin points out. I can't agree with everything Cerin has said on this topic, but she is right that there is, in fact, a false equivalency.

But that's not the point - this is not a contest.

[River]

We have little control over how our words will be perceived by everyone. But being aware of the filters an audience brings to table and the feelings/actions words may inspire is still the responsibility of the speaker. It is beyond careless to use violent rhetoric if violence is not your goal, or even a means to a goal.

This.

This is what I was trying to get at and what Voronwë's been trying to get at. A colorful metaphor or analogy might make you feel better, but making comparisons or drawing analogies to gangrene has a much higher chance of evoking the sorts of emotional responses that thoroughly derail any hopes for a civil discussion than, saw, comparisons or analogies to a clogged drain.

[Cerin]

I am taking the liberty of asking anyone commenting on the analogy I used to please do so in the Nan Elmoth thread. River, I have replied to you there.

If people continue to discuss it here, then I will feel free to do so as well.

[SirDennis]

Apologies to Cerin and the board.

Shifting now to the aftermath of the shooting, CBC news is reporting that security was high (presumably because of those in attendance) at the funeral of one of the victims, US District Judge John Roll:

Security was tight Friday in Tucson, Ariz., at the funeral of U.S. District Judge John Roll, who served nearly 40 years and was shot and killed last weekend, along with five others, during the attempted assassination U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Thirteen others were wounded by a lone gunman, including Giffords, who was shot in the head.

...

[Judge Roll] was no stranger to death threats and controversy during his years on the federal bench.

Two years ago, Roll presided over the case of 16 illegal immigrants who had sued border rancher Roger Barnett, saying he threatened them at gunpoint, kicked them and harassed them with dogs. Roll upheld the civil rights claim and allowed a jury to hear the case.

...

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/1 ... z1B2nGW8Jp

[Holbytla]

I think part of the reason Palin got leaped on in the hours after the shooting was the eerily prescient-seeming remarks Gifford made a while back about how those crosshairs might have a bad influence on someone.

Palin's office claiming the crosshairs were just "surveyor's marks" didn't help. Blatant lying doesn't help anyone's case.

Let us posit, for the moment, that the amount of unfortunate rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum is equal. What, then, explains the disproportionate tendency in our time of those who commit acts of political murder and assault in the US to be on the fringe of the right, and not the fringe of the left? Sure, you can spend some time on Google and dig up isolated--extremely isolated--incidents of violence from the left, but the numbers and intensity of acts on the other side over the past twenty years speak for themselves. Reality has a selection bias here.

Maybe I am old and dumb, but it seems to me that my life's experience has taught me that the "left" has been more prone to pacifism. While I think it is unfair to paint a large group of people with a broad brush, I do believe that groups have overarching tendencies, and to ignore them is in essence disbelieving what they stand for.

There are always exceptions and extremisms, but I think it is fair to say that your basic "peace loving lefty" is not as prone to violence as other groups. Isn't that what makes them "left" in the first place?

[Dave_LF]

I do think this is significant. Pacifism is a relatively new import. Early last century it barely existed; leftists then were socialists and anarchists who were as willing to use violence as anyone else. Opposition to war and outright pacifism didn't go mainstream until after the 60s. Significantly, this is when left-wing violence began to taper off. These days, an American with an inherently violent temperament would be turned off by those facets of the Democratic and Green parties, and probably wouldn't get involved with them in the first place.

There are going to be some who get in anyway, of course, but not as many, and not as bad. Quantities matter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You can't blame the nice folks of Maine for that, axordil.

They didn't all vote for the guy.

You would think, in this day and age, that even a dolt like that would realize that EVERY word and act he commits in public (and a lot in private) are going to come back and bite him in the butt.

Just as if a Giant Lobster got loose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the folks in Maine don't have one big enough, there are couple in the museum in Weymouth, Nova Scotia.

I spent a couple of weeks in Maine just before the election, visiting Beth's family. LePage's campaign ads were pretty scary, as were the ads attacking him.

[Alatar]

<Osgiliation>Not sure where Sir Dennis is from, but in Ireland and the UK, twat, is just slightly more offensive than twit. In other words, not at all. I only recently was informed that its considered to be much worse in the US</Osgiliation>

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sir Dennis is from the great country of Canada. But he wasn't the one who used the term.

[Cerin]

<Osgiliation>Not sure where Sir Dennis is from, but in Ireland and the UK, twat, is just slightly more offensive than twit. In other words, not at all. I only recently was informed that its considered to be much worse in the US</Osgiliation>

Thanks for pointing that out, Alatar. Had I known it had an alternate meaning in the US, I wouldn't have used it. When I said 'a load of ...' I meant, a load of b-s or garbage. I believe I will go change it to 'b-s' now.

[River]

Yeah, um, in the US, "twat" is one step down from "c***" and describes the same piece of female anatomy.

[vison]

Poor Robert Browning . . . .

[axordil]

Hey, Elizabeth wasn't THAT old.

[Primula Baggins]

Now, now. You must know that particular literary anecdote, as I'm sure you're a Browning fan (as indeed who is not?). Wikipedia entry (how I love Wikipedia).

(I mean, I knew about it years ago. Though probably from reading Will Cuppy or something.)