![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The TV made me do it!!
Within say, an hour of this weekend's shooting, the Internet discourse devolved into a hateful screaming match about who is more responsible. I'm here to tell you that there is plenty of blame to go around.
Sure, there's plenty of violent rhetoric coming from the right. To rile up their angry, frightened, gun-and-scapegoat-loving base, conservatives do tend to employ a lot of aggressive language that many are citing as the impetus for this shooting. Now let me ask you this, how many of you have ever murdered someone because someone on TV told you to? Nobody? Okay, good. Now, how many of you have ever murdered someone because a couple people on TV, the internet, and politics suggested that you do so? Again, nobody? Awesome. Have you ever murdered someone (or even tried) because of a book, a song, a movie, a little devil on your shoulder, or a map with a bunch of cross-hairs on it? I thought not. That's because this is something disturbed people do. People who are not well acquainted with reality can sometimes take things more literally than intended, with ugly, horrible consequences. And of course, the Bible has been cited as the cause for many, man murders. So has Catcher in the Rye. But we don't dig up the corpses of Salinger or Jesus so we can hold them accountable, do we?
That said, I honestly do not think that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly are actually glad that someone opened fire on a crowd. In fact, I bet they are horrified because they know full well that a lot of people will blame them for the actions of a lone loon. Yes, teabaggers are often also gun nuts. Yes, many are racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. They are ignorant, misinformed, carry nonsensical misspelled signs, and are terrified of anything they don't understand. I think they are ludicrous, and need to shut up. I do NOT, however, think they are all okay with murdering people they don't agree with. In my opinion, gun nuts come in two basic stripes: Those who are nutty for guns the way that I am nutty for movies: enthusiastic, knowledgeable, passionate, are careful not to leave naughty things in reach of children. Then, there are the frightened, hateful types who keep tons of guns around because they are terrified that the gov't, the ter'rsts, the atheists, or whoever they're hating at the mo' are gonna come take their guns and kill their grandmothers or whatever. They cram the 2nd amendment down our collective throats and swear that they are nothing more than patriots who love their country...which must be the reason Sig Sauer puts out crap like this.
IMHO, the reason shit like this happens is largely due to the stigma surrounding mental illness. When we pretend that the ONLY diagnoses are "crazy" or "sane" and that telling someone they need mental help is a huge insult--we open the door for nuttiness to be confused with reality. This is exacerbated by denying poor people access to doctors and a general tenor in society that people who get help for mental issues are inherently less valuable, trustworthy, truthful, or reasonable than people who fervently pretend that they are fine. If you think spraying a peaceful crowd with automatic gunfire is a good way to get your point across, you're a loon. And you'd be a loon even if no one had ever heard of Sarah Palin or her endless chanting of "don't retreat, reload!"
Myself, I write exactly the sort of books that some loon might read the wrong way and think I'm telling him/her to murder someone or that "evil" is okay. They are crazy books, but like Michael Douglass in "Falling Down," they make an odd kind of sense. I do not advocate murder, nor do I believe in evil. Evil is a cop-out, just like Bill O'Reilly's version of god. I don't know what causes this, so it must be god/the devil/bob/evil/FSM. Like zero-tolerance policies, it is a short cut to thinking or having to decide things.
With all of that in mind, Fred Phleps and his ilk can fuck right off for their plans to picket the funerals of these people. I know I just said I don't advocate violence, but if I was a Christian and this guy kept telling people he was on the same side as me--I might well want to introduce his face to a jumbo roll of duct tape.
Sure, there's plenty of violent rhetoric coming from the right. To rile up their angry, frightened, gun-and-scapegoat-loving base, conservatives do tend to employ a lot of aggressive language that many are citing as the impetus for this shooting. Now let me ask you this, how many of you have ever murdered someone because someone on TV told you to? Nobody? Okay, good. Now, how many of you have ever murdered someone because a couple people on TV, the internet, and politics suggested that you do so? Again, nobody? Awesome. Have you ever murdered someone (or even tried) because of a book, a song, a movie, a little devil on your shoulder, or a map with a bunch of cross-hairs on it? I thought not. That's because this is something disturbed people do. People who are not well acquainted with reality can sometimes take things more literally than intended, with ugly, horrible consequences. And of course, the Bible has been cited as the cause for many, man murders. So has Catcher in the Rye. But we don't dig up the corpses of Salinger or Jesus so we can hold them accountable, do we?
That said, I honestly do not think that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly are actually glad that someone opened fire on a crowd. In fact, I bet they are horrified because they know full well that a lot of people will blame them for the actions of a lone loon. Yes, teabaggers are often also gun nuts. Yes, many are racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. They are ignorant, misinformed, carry nonsensical misspelled signs, and are terrified of anything they don't understand. I think they are ludicrous, and need to shut up. I do NOT, however, think they are all okay with murdering people they don't agree with. In my opinion, gun nuts come in two basic stripes: Those who are nutty for guns the way that I am nutty for movies: enthusiastic, knowledgeable, passionate, are careful not to leave naughty things in reach of children. Then, there are the frightened, hateful types who keep tons of guns around because they are terrified that the gov't, the ter'rsts, the atheists, or whoever they're hating at the mo' are gonna come take their guns and kill their grandmothers or whatever. They cram the 2nd amendment down our collective throats and swear that they are nothing more than patriots who love their country...which must be the reason Sig Sauer puts out crap like this.
IMHO, the reason shit like this happens is largely due to the stigma surrounding mental illness. When we pretend that the ONLY diagnoses are "crazy" or "sane" and that telling someone they need mental help is a huge insult--we open the door for nuttiness to be confused with reality. This is exacerbated by denying poor people access to doctors and a general tenor in society that people who get help for mental issues are inherently less valuable, trustworthy, truthful, or reasonable than people who fervently pretend that they are fine. If you think spraying a peaceful crowd with automatic gunfire is a good way to get your point across, you're a loon. And you'd be a loon even if no one had ever heard of Sarah Palin or her endless chanting of "don't retreat, reload!"
Myself, I write exactly the sort of books that some loon might read the wrong way and think I'm telling him/her to murder someone or that "evil" is okay. They are crazy books, but like Michael Douglass in "Falling Down," they make an odd kind of sense. I do not advocate murder, nor do I believe in evil. Evil is a cop-out, just like Bill O'Reilly's version of god. I don't know what causes this, so it must be god/the devil/bob/evil/FSM. Like zero-tolerance policies, it is a short cut to thinking or having to decide things.
With all of that in mind, Fred Phleps and his ilk can fuck right off for their plans to picket the funerals of these people. I know I just said I don't advocate violence, but if I was a Christian and this guy kept telling people he was on the same side as me--I might well want to introduce his face to a jumbo roll of duct tape.
no subject
This is one thing I'll nitpick with you:
You seem to insinuate here that they're horrified for any reason other than the publicity will be negative. They're not. If the shooting had resulted in people saying "well, that's ok, I guess," you better believe Palin and Beck would be screaming in victory over the airwaves about how their side had won a fight.
These folks contain no shred of compassion for their listeners, not a whit of empathy for anyone who might be hurt by their rhetoric, no emotions for as much as one soul but themselves. The only reason they're backpedaling is because if people don't like them as much, they won't keep getting money for being horrible fucking human beings.
How many people have been killed because someone told a sick fuckhead to kill? You need look no further than the streets of Los Angeles. You need look no further than our prisons.
I do believe in the first amendment. I do not believe people should be allowed to say anything they want, then refuse to take responsibility for their words later.
no subject
O'Reilly and Limbaugh think they're doing theatre. I'd guess that they don't know the tangible effect of their rantings (because they are just that far removed from reality); or as you've said, they just don't give a shit. I would certainly prefer to be in a country where no one takes that shit seriously. The WWE has more authenticity than Limbaugh. Beck, I feel very certain, is mentally ill. He shouldn't have a driver's license, let alone a TV program. He is a textbook delusional with what looks to me like a bi-polar chaser. I expect him to bray like a moron--he's nuts. I do not expect people to listen to him and do what he says.
Palin is the only one that I honestly think is on a power tripping rampage; and the only one who might be legitimately glad that people are listening to her. I imagine it's difficult to be told your whole life how pretty you are, only to turn 45 and realize you're dumb as dirt. She should certainly hold herself to the same standards she holds the entire Muslim religion. Peaceful GOP lunatics should stand up and denounce the shooter. They haven't. Ergo, they must side with terrorism according to Ms Moose.
The only reason any of these people are allowed to do what they do in the first place is that people respond to it. Crazy people. Stupid people. Frightened people. People who are easily led. FOX news shouldn't be allowed to do what they do--people shouldn't stand for it. But they not only tolerate it, they line up for it. That's been going on for some time now. When I was a kid, they were called Televangelists. Now they are called FOX News 4pm-10pm.
The government has to respect their right to speech, but citizens don't have to give them an audience. Nor do they have to fire into a crowd, even if a really pretty lady gave them a map. People should be accountable for the things they say, and the things they do. Drawing a straight line from FOX/GOP to this shooting leaves out a few crucial details IMO.
Awesome!
Sorry to comment as a random visitor, but I loved this post (and also, the streaming bubbles on your page!). (Also "Falling Down," which is possibly the most under-appreciated film in Hollywood's history.) I, too write books that can be taken the wrong way ... in fact, one of mine comes with its own recipe for crack!
I think people are missing the point on this one. Whether or not any particular killing resulted from any particular language isn't really what's important. What I find disturbing is that somehow it has become acceptable for American candidates to discuss American politics in absolutist terms with violent imagery like this.
The first amendment is a wonderful protection of our right to speak, but it seems to me that people who make their living in front of a microphone should behave responsibly, resist the urge to rabble-rouse, etc. HOWEVER, note that there have always been people who tried to do this sort of thing, and up until now, the American people never bought into it enough for it to become part of the mainstream political discourse. Until now.
The rhetoric being bandied about in American politics these days much more closely resembles that of puppet dictators in the Third World or Hitler in his early days. Rather than worrying about the cause/effect relationship with this one incident, I think we should be wondering where we're headed as a country.
Re: Awesome!
Free Speech exists so that everyone is free to share opinions and facts without facing governmental censure. It's pretty great. There are laws against lying about people publicly, especially with the intent of causing harm. No one is supposed to do it. It's illegal. But it's a civil crime. Maybe that should change. Speech is damn powerful, that's why we use it.
I would love to hear the way in which a recipe for crack enhances a story. For serious.
no subject
The following weekend the area was flooded with blue-singleted, flag-waving "True Aussies" looking for anyone of Middle Eastern appearance to bash. There were riots, multiple assaults; a horrible, horrible display of racist violence.
The shock jock denied that this unprecedented event had anything to do with him. I think the courts decided otherwise.
I believe that the Right have been using inflammatory rhetoric which equates with incitement to violence. They cannot incite violence directly, of course, but they can "dog whistle" by using euphemisms and symbolism. Whether the intention is to intimidate people from running for office against them, or to excite the demographic who like to think they would use their guns to defend Democracy if it came to it, or to send that dog-whistle to the members of the population who interpret it to be a tacit agreement with their racist/whatever-ist/tinfoil-hat-lizard-people perspectives... well I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I think it's all of that.
I also think that if the people organising the campaigns want us to believe that they were oblivious to the susceptibility of people with unstable mental health to interpret the 'dog whistle' icons they used in ways which would lead them to violence, they are asking too much.
If the target-map and exhortations to use second amendment remedies were discovered in the school locker of a fifteen year old boy, a SWOT team would be smacking his face into the pavement and slapping on the handcuffs within minutes. And yet when it's a political campaign, it's free speech and only a crazy person would take it literally. They appear determined to deny that there are honest to goodness "crazy people" (in their terminology) in the community, and that they need assistance and support rather than carefully nuanced incitements to violence.
They have to be aware that there are people out there who are not well enough to care for themselves, and to distinguish reality from delusion. Sarah Palin's political campaign is the moral equivalent of packaging cyanide in pink and blue lolly packets labeled "delicious, fun cyanide candy" and leaving it in a McDonald's restaurant, then being shocked, shocked when some kid comes to harm, then in their own defence saying "but I didn't tell them to eat it!".
no subject
I strongly agree that people should take responsibility for their words, especially when they are in the public eye by choice. It is both telling and disgusting that the most notorious hate mongers are NOT denouncing the act, the shooter, or gun violence in general. That is especially offensive given some of the anti-Muslim commentary that's been bandied around lately.
I would also be okay with libel/slander being criminally prosecutable instead of just a civil matter. I just don't think this incident is as simple as That guy opened fire on a crowd because of Sarah Palin/Beck/random FOX whackadoo.