Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: More than rhetorical violence (273 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Careful Everyone (0+ / 0-)

    It looks like the shooter was not a right-winger.  His friends are describing him as "left of center" and he apparently had some dealings with Giffords in the past.

    Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

    by JCPOK on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:09:17 PM PST

    •  Huh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo
      based on what? some random twitter post? try again n/t
    •  Oh drop it (6+ / 0-)

      I think we'll find that he wasn't "left of center" OR "right-wing" but "out beyond Pluto".

      None of which excuses for a picoinstant the flagrant incitement spewing from the right wing hatemongers - sprayed around in all directions like gasoline, while they juggle lighted torches. And when they drop one, "Oops, not OUR fault that the gasoline caught fire!"

      If it's
      Not your body
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      AND it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:18:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He was for the gold standard (6+ / 0-)

        and against womens rights (abortion).

        That's so far right that it's getting into Ayn Rand territory.

        And the Southern Law Poverty guy told KO that the language control stuff that the guy was talking is also something you'll find on the far right fringe.

        The guy is not a lefty.

        "He's the one, who likes all our pretty songs. And he likes to sing along. And he likes to shoot his gun. But he knows not what it means" - Kurt Cobain

        by Jeff Y on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:24:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Y

          starting to see some of that stuff now.  thanks.

          Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

          by JCPOK on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:26:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well to set the record straight (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, Jeff Y

          Ayn Rand was pro-gold standard BUT absolutely and uncompromisingly pro-choice. She was all kinds of nuts on a lot of issues, but not on women's reproductive rights. (Of course, that was probably an outgrowth of her own selfish desire to be child-free, which she achieved - possibly with illegal medical assistance. But still....)

          If it's
          Not your body
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          AND it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:32:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Southern Poverty Law Center.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Y

          ..... is the leading private intel think-tank about extremist groups and the violence they commit.  Their analysis should be considered definitive.  

          •  Not always. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jeff Y

            they do tend to throw the term "hate group" around pretty freely, especially in the context of the illegal immigration debate.

            Don't get me wrong, Morris Dees is one of the good guys. But he and his organization can be pretty aggressive. Given that they started off going up against the Klan, that's to be expected.

            In any case, I'm not about to give the SPLC the status of "definitive"... because I don't give anybody that status.

            It's a data point, nothing more.

            --Shannon

            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

            by Leftie Gunner on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:58:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  if you don't consider anyone's analysis as.... (0+ / 0-)

              ... definitive, that's like adding the same quantity to both sides of an equation: it zeroes out.  

              If you can find any author or organization (aside from three-letter agencies, whose material is not public) whose analysis is consistently better (and is available to the public), feel free to post a link here and I'l go 'round promoting them too.

              •  Ultimately, were talking about moral judgements (0+ / 0-)

                which are 100% personal.

                I'm simply saying that I'm not going to turn over my decision about which groups are evil to Morris Dees.

                His research is quite thorough, and he gets his facts right. But the final decision is my own, because his definition of "hate" and mine may differ.

                I simply am not capable of accepting the idea of authority in matters of opinion.

                --Shannon

                "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 12:16:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  moral judgements that are 100% personal? (0+ / 0-)

                  Really?

                  So it's only a personal judgement that it's wrong to kill a federal judge and five other people and grievously wound a Congressmember and shoot & wound fourteen other people in the process?

                  So it's only a personal judgement that groups that provide the rhetorical impetus for such acts be characterized as "hate" groups?

                  "Only" a "matter of opinion"...?

                  And "the final decision is my own"...?  Really.  

                  Who are you anyway, Socrates?  Desmond Tutu in disguise?  Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King arisen from the dead?   A reincarnation of the Buddha or the Second Coming of Christ, or the atheist version of any of the above?  

                  Frankly you sound more like every two-bit anarchist I've ever heard, who likes to start fights with cops at demonstrations.   Or perhaps an Ayn Randian.  

                  Or prove me wrong.  Let's hear your definition of hate, and how it differs from SPLC's.  

                  •  We all make our own judgements. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    G2geek, Oh Mary Oh

                    And no, I'm not willing to classify groups like FAIR (for example) with the KKK, wrongheaded though I think they are.

                    Are there organizations that promote racial and political hatred? Of course there are. Hell, we'd likely agree on which groups fit that classification in most cases.

                    My only objection is to the idea that, if SPLC classifies any particular group as a "hate group", that classification must be accepted as definitive. It isn't. They can be wrong, and we all get to make up our own minds.

                    Anarchist? Starting fights with cops at demonstrations? Not hardly. nor have I ever read Ayn Rand. Well, that's not exactly true... I did read "The Virtue of Selfishness" in college. I thought it was bullshit. That somebody considered it necessary to encourage humans to behave selfishly seems like writing about the desirability of sunrise.

                    --Shannon

                    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                    by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:54:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Oh Mary Oh

                      ... and a Rec for not taking the "who are you anyway?" bait, which is a trigger for those who don't introspect much.  

                      SPLC's work has certainly been definitive in a legal sense, in that it's led to court judgements with clear consequences that were not reversed.  They also provide information to other clients who act upon it in ways that are legally definitive.  

                      That may not satisfy our respective personal quests for Platonic truth, but it satisfies the standards of the law and politics.  

                      And by the way, I'm not one to defer a-priori to authority either.  I have nothing but contempt for the mindless conformist types who outsource their thinking, and I use the term "peer pressure" as an epithet.  

                      Frankly I find the standard of discourse that makes up most of politics to be far less less rigorous than that which occurs in philosophy and science, where sound reasoning and empirical facts are not optional.  DKos tends to be an exception, though the increased population of the place over the years has brought a corresponding increase in the amount of obscurantist nonsense and groupthink.

                      But the core issues underlying the necessity for staying engaged in political struggles, are the threats of religious extremism or climate change.   If individuals wish to believe in nonsense or to darwinize themselves, that's their right; but when they seek to impose their will upon others with the force of law, or when their behavior threatens to create an "evolutionary bottleneck" for our entire species, it's time to wade into the swamp and do battle.  

                      BTW, extra points for your last sentence: "That somebody considered it necessary to encourage humans to behave selfishly seems like writing about the desirability of sunrise."  Nicely said.  

        •  Being for the gold standard is libertarian. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Y

          Wasn't it Ron Paul who advocated this solution to our economic problems?

      •  It looks like... (0+ / 0-)

        He was active politically in 2007 and went to an event hosted by Giffords at a mall.  Giffords wrote him a letter thanking him for attending.  That's the letter they found in his house with "my assassination" scribed on it.  

        Who knows.  More recently he was definitely spouting a lot of anti-government rhetoric in his YouTube videos and insulting people who voted fro Giffords.  

        My guess is that he was infatuated with her, then felt spurned and got caught up in all the hateful stuff going on.

        Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

        by JCPOK on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:25:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site