U.S. politics isolation tank

[Netzach]

So very tempted to say something along the lines of "...in the land of the blind..."


There's a fascinating quandary in play right now. Folks on the left traditionally have pooh-poohed any suggestion from the right that violent video games or grossly violent movies might have contributed to violence in society. Yet recently it was pretty common for left-side commentators to blast the SarahPAC graphic with the gun-sight image on Gabrielle Giffords' district. At the same time, folks on the right who habitually decry the deleterious effect of "Hollywood immorality" want to claim all of a sudden that culture can have no effect on individual actions.

Neither side can have it both ways, and yet both sides have a point. You can't make a clean case that this shooting—or most violent acts for that matter—can be linked causally to the violent gun-centric rhetoric of the right over the last couple of years. So the right has a point. On the other hand, that the cultural atmosphere is so ridden with violence almost certainly contributes in some way to the creation of a more violent society.

That we cannot link a cultural impact with a particular act in no way relieves the culture of some measure of responsibility.

Tone comes from the top down in a culture.

It's risky when private entities, such as I do, deal with extreme ideas and weird impulses.

It's fucking irresponsible when elected officials do it. Then we get all Lord of the Flies insane very fast.

I don't think this gray area is as big as all that.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think I'm having trouble seeing the quandary, because I don't see the equivalence.

There's an enormous difference between graphic & gratuitous violence involving fictional characters in games and film, and language that explicitly demonizes, and urges the targeting of, real individuals.

If you want to talk about the general gun culture, look at my weapons, I'm so badass, don't tread on me blah blah, then I think you've got an apt comparison and a relevant head-scratcher of a quandary. But "general" is not what's been going on.

Of course there's an enormous difference between the two. I'm not denying it and I've spent the last few days seething about the fetid culture of violence associated with the right wing in this country. But that does not diminish the essential argument I'm trying to make.

On some level we have to accept that cultural elements such as entertainment or political speech have an impact on culture, and often it's not a positive impact. There need not be an equivalence between the elements to make this claim. The right wants to claim that political speech has no impact but that entertainment has a deleterious one and folks on the left want to make the opposite claim. Neither position is tenable. That's my only point, that neither position is tenable.

 

[Netzach]

Of course there's an enormous difference between the two. I'm not denying it and I've spent the last few days seething about the fetid culture of violence associated with the right wing in this country. But that does not diminish the essential argument I'm trying to make.

On some level we have to accept that cultural elements such as entertainment or political speech have an impact on culture, and often it's not a positive impact. There need not be an equivalence between the elements to make this claim. The right wants to claim that political speech has no impact but that entertainment has a deleterious one and folks on the left want to make the opposite claim. Neither position is tenable. That's my only point, that neither position is tenable.

Dude, I think it's a good question, I do.

I personally think these things work the way libel does - libel is not a two-way street of free speech. The person with more clout can libel the person with less and not the other way around.

 

[midwestyankee]

Dude, I think it's a good question, I do.

I personally think these things work the way libel does - libel is not a two-way street of free speech. The person with more clout can libel the person with less and not the other way around.

Interesting perspective.

I do think that when you look at the degree to which the people at the very top of the Republican side of things have been involved with the violent rhetoric lately it's gob smacking.

Jim Fallows, who writes for The Atlantic, posted a link to this chronology of right-wing insurrectionism. It's mind-bogglingly long and covers only the last two years. The vast majority of the incidents were perpetrated by what you might think of as ordinary citizens, but the culture seeping down from Limbaugh, Boehner and the rest has a stench about it that is undeniable.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I don't usually watch the guy. What did he say?

Straightforward stuff, both in print and on the show this morning, about the impact of paranoid screaming and threatening language on nutjobs, and on the debate. Revolutionary because it's common sense:

“Nobody can find a direct link to a Sarah Palin ad or a Michele Bachmann statement or the extreme rants from the left,” he says. “But it serves as a very clear warning to everyone involved in politics that there are unbalanced people out there who may seize on any words they hear and the consequences may be devastating. “Timothy McVeigh didn’t come to his conclusions about government in a vacuum.” While the case of Arizona gunman Jared Loughner is very different, he says, “we warned for three years that those who are most affected by the harsh language are people who are detached from reality and can hear the ranting on cable or in parts of the blogosphere.”

So very tempted to say something along the lines of "...in the land of the blind..."


There's a fascinating quandary in play right now. Folks on the left traditionally have pooh-poohed any suggestion from the right that violent video games or grossly violent movies might have contributed to violence in society. Yet recently it was pretty common for left-side commentators to blast the SarahPAC graphic with the gun-sight image on Gabrielle Giffords' district. At the same time, folks on the right who habitually decry the deleterious effect of "Hollywood immorality" want to claim all of a sudden that culture can have no effect on individual actions.

Neither side can have it both ways, and yet both sides have a point. You can't make a clean case that this shooting—or most violent acts for that matter—can be linked causally to the violent gun-centric rhetoric of the right over the last couple of years. So the right has a point. On the other hand, that the cultural atmosphere is so ridden with violence almost certainly contributes in some way to the creation of a more violent society.

That we cannot link a cultural impact with a particular act in no way relieves the culture of some measure of responsibility.

I think I'm having trouble seeing the quandary, because I don't see the equivalence.

There's an enormous difference between graphic & gratuitous violence involving fictional characters in games and film, and language that explicitly demonizes, and urges the targeting of, real individuals.

If you want to talk about the general gun culture, look at my weapons, I'm so badass, don't tread on me blah blah, then I think you've got an apt comparison and a relevant head-scratcher of a quandary. But "general" is not what's been going on.

Tone comes from the top down in a culture.

It's risky when private entities, such as I do, deal with extreme ideas and weird impulses.

It's fucking irresponsible when elected officials do it. Then we get all Lord of the Flies insane very fast.

I don't think this gray area is as big as all that.

Yeah, when "leaders" fuel the angry elements of their party with talk about justifiable violence, that's brown shirt stuff, and in a different league.

But I do find the right/left split interesting, anyway. As MWY says, conservatives are generally more skeptical of the idea that environment can be culpable, right? Personal responsibility trumps all, and conditions like poverty are irrelevant. In this week's case, for instance, if you can find a phone record that shows Palin made a call to Loughner, then it's relevant, otherwise why are we having this conversation?*

Except in some cases, where conservatives obsess over the effects of "anti-family" entertainment on the culture. Remember all the end-of-the-world crap about "Harry Potter" when it was first published?

*Except that this is politically expedient: if a GOP congressman had been shot after two years of sloganeering about armed revolution, you can bet conservatives would see a causal relationship.

 

[JMohegan]

Jim Fallows, who writes for The Atlantic, posted a link to this chronology of right-wing insurrectionism.

Re the reference to Heller, now there's a quandary for you.



Court says I've got a 2nd amendment right to buy a handgun in case I decide the government's turned all tyrannical and shit....

but....

law says I can't actually use it against any government officials when I decide they've turned all tyrannical.

What's up with that, man? What the fuck! What's the point of my anti-tyranny Glock if I can't actually use it! This Loughner guy's getting screwed over big time. Daaaaamn.

 

[JMohegan]

Straightforward stuff, both in print and on the show this morning, about the impact of paranoid screaming and threatening language on nutjobs, and on the debate. Revolutionary because it's common sense:

“Nobody can find a direct link to a Sarah Palin ad or a Michele Bachmann statement or the extreme rants from the left,” he says. “But it serves as a very clear warning to everyone involved in politics that there are unbalanced people out there who may seize on any words they hear and the consequences may be devastating. “Timothy McVeigh didn’t come to his conclusions about government in a vacuum.” While the case of Arizona gunman Jared Loughner is very different, he says, “we warned for three years that those who are most affected by the harsh language are people who are detached from reality and can hear the ranting on cable or in parts of the blogosphere.”

We don't have to "warn" anymore. We can point to events that have actually transpired.

The clearest examples yet involve Glenn Beck. That crazy California guy who went after the Tides Foundation, and the bastard who shot 3 cops in Pittsburgh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

We don't have to "warn" anymore. We can point to events that have actually transpired.

The clearest examples yet involve Glenn Beck. That crazy California guy who went after the Tides Foundation, and the bastard who shot 3 cops in Pittsburgh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html

Damn, I barely remember that. I guess conspiracy is still a growing sector of the economy.

"The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America's head. . . . Hold these people responsible."

Father Coughlin on drugs.

 

[JMohegan]

Dude, I think it's a good question, I do.

I personally think these things work the way libel does - libel is not a two-way street of free speech. The person with more clout can libel the person with less and not the other way around.

A fine example taking place right now in Iowa.

Wes Enos, Republican Party of Iowa central committee member, goes on a local radio program to discuss the Republicans' plan to impeach four members of the Iowa Supreme Court because of their '09 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

In the exchange below, Deace is the radio host. The "people" he references are the Iowa Supreme Court justices, and "that opinion" is the ruling that found DOMA unconstitutional.


DEACE: I think these are shameless, brazen, immoral people that are open enemies of God.

ENOS: That’s true.

DEACE: They clearly sent us a signal by putting Mark Cady, who wrote that opinion as their new [Chief Justice]. They clearly sent us a message, and the first word starts with the letter “F” and the second word starts with the letter “Y.” That was clearly their first public action since the retention election.

ENOS: I think you’re completely right on that topic.

http://iowaindependent.com/50312/co...eme-court-justices-are-immoral-enemies-of-god

 

[JMohegan]

Damn, I barely remember that. I guess conspiracy is still a growing sector of the economy.

"The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America's head. . . . Hold these people responsible."

Father Coughlin on drugs.

And that irresponsible bastard is given a prime platform by the most powerful news organization in the world.

 

[JMohegan]

So Palin went for option 4. "I'm the real victim here!"

Blood libel. Jesus christ.

 

[midwestyankee]

So Palin went for option 4. "I'm the real victim here!"

Blood libel. Jesus christ.

I think she had an opportunity here to prove that she's more than a venal, self-centered publicity whore who happens to work in a politics-related field. A few appropriate remarks of regret over the possibility that some of her actions may have helped create a dangerous atmosphere and she might have earned a small amount of respect. Instead she chose to make this incident all about here. But it was not. Most of us here have held her in sufficiently low regard for two and a half years; perhaps a few more folks over on the red team will begin to see her for what she really is.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

So Palin went for option 4. "I'm the real victim here!"

Blood libel. Jesus christ.

I think she had an opportunity here to prove that she's more than a venal, self-centered publicity whore who happens to work in a politics-related field. A few appropriate remarks of regret over the possibility that some of her actions may have helped create a dangerous atmosphere and she might have earned a small amount of respect. Instead she chose to make this incident all about here. But it was not. Most of us here have held her in sufficiently low regard for two and a half years; perhaps a few more folks over on the red team will begin to see her for what she really is.

Well, at least it's true to form. Really, never admitting she's in any way wrong is her brand. In fact, she makes W look like a contemplative dude, and that's saying something.

This is why she racks up rabid loyalty with her base, and hatred from most of the rest. Not a recipe for becoming president (or for crafting a better society, for that matter), but a terrific way to make piles of money.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Liberals and conservatives just don't see eye to eye.

Political Leanings Revealed by the Eyes

It may be time to take the phrase "political viewpoint" literally. A new study suggests that liberals are more likely than conservatives to follow other people's eye movements.

People normally respond to "gaze cues," or the direction that another person is looking, by glancing to see what caught that person's attention. The new study, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, finds that liberals respond much more strongly to such cues than conservatives. The finding is the latest in a series of clues that liberals and conservatives may be subtly different on a biological level, said study researcher Michael Dodd, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

 

[Netzach]

Liberals and conservatives just don't see eye to eye.

Political Leanings Revealed by the Eyes

It may be time to take the phrase "political viewpoint" literally. A new study suggests that liberals are more likely than conservatives to follow other people's eye movements.

People normally respond to "gaze cues," or the direction that another person is looking, by glancing to see what caught that person's attention. The new study, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, finds that liberals respond much more strongly to such cues than conservatives. The finding is the latest in a series of clues that liberals and conservatives may be subtly different on a biological level, said study researcher Michael Dodd, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

"Dodd and his colleagues believe that a more likely explanation is that conservatives value personal autonomy more than liberals, making them less likely to be influenced by others."

Um, wtf? Ideological kool aid much, Nebraska? Yeah, I hate my autonomy, you guys hate your autonomy?

I love this. We're getting closer to the rhetorical climate of Rwanda every day.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Sarah Palin!!!!

 

[Netzach]

Sarah Palin!!!!

Over by?

Bets anyone?

I'm giving her 6 mos.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I was just being a liberal.


I say she's only getting started.

They. Laughed. At. Reagan. Too.

 

[intothewoods]

I was just being a liberal.


I say she's only getting started.

They. Laughed. At. Reagan. Too.

Hey, I'm loving Nixonland btw!

Is Palin as good as Reagan though? She can be a great speaker, but I still think she'll do herself in.

 

[midwestyankee]

Hey, I'm loving Nixonland btw!

Is Palin as good as Reagan though? She can be a great speaker, but I still think she'll do herself in.

Palin is a wooden speaker with only very modest platform skills. Her "speeches" are simply crafted with little art. Reagan was smart enough to have talented speech writers almost from the beginning. He knew how to deliver lines and how to connect with his audiences.

By the time that Reagan began to promote himself for national office he had been governor of the nation's most populous state for almost 8 years. The comparison with Palin is laughable. As much as many on the left mocked Reagan for being mostly an actor with some political experience, he was still tremendously more experienced and talented as a politician than Ms. Half-Term former Mayor.

 

[midwestyankee]

Over by?

Bets anyone?

I'm giving her 6 mos.

I think she's just smart and selfish enough to stay out of the race because losing will kill her golden goose - assuming there's any goose left to drop golden turds for her by then. On your bet, though, I think you may well be right, but I'll give her 9 months before her unfavorables are so low that even Fox News won't want her on air.

 

[intothewoods]

Palin is a wooden speaker with only very modest platform skills. Her "speeches" are simply crafted with little art. Reagan was smart enough to have talented speech writers almost from the beginning. He knew how to deliver lines and how to connect with his audiences.

By the time that Reagan began to promote himself for national office he had been governor of the nation's most populous state for almost 8 years. The comparison with Palin is laughable. As much as many on the left mocked Reagan for being mostly an actor with some political experience, he was still tremendously more experienced and talented as a politician than Ms. Half-Term former Mayor.

I think she's a good speaker. I don't think she's wooden at all. The tone and content is just really nasty, and I don't get why that appeals at all. She's terrible at interviews though, and I agree that the experience level of her staff, including speech writers, isn't so impressive. She always does herself in.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Hey, I'm loving Nixonland btw!

I knew you would!

 

[midwestyankee]

I think she's a good speaker. I don't think she's wooden at all. The tone and content is just really nasty, and I don't get why that appeals at all. She's terrible at interviews though, and I agree that the experience level of her staff, including speech writers, isn't so impressive. She always does herself in.

Perhaps she has improved in the last year or so but the time I watched more than 30 seconds of her speaking I was singularly unimpressed with her delivery mechanics without regard for her content.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Perhaps she has improved in the last year or so but the time I watched more than 30 seconds of her speaking I was singularly unimpressed with her delivery mechanics without regard for her content.

I think you're supposed to be unimpressed. She's down-home, after all.

Hipopalorum