Brace yourselves: Santorum is leading a wave of stochastic terrorism. Get ready for shootings...

[backscatter712]

For those of you unfamiliar with the term "stochastic terrorism", there's a classic diary on Daily Kos that explains it...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters?showAll=yes&via=blog_558016

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do. And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.

Think of it as being like Russian Roulette, because it has a random component - that's what stochastic means. The right-wingers go on their media channels, making all sorts of outrageous statements. Dog whistles, dehumanizing, demonizing. Over and over and over. Because they've got some statisticians, hovering over what resembles actuarial tables, and they know that every time they make such statements, there's a probability that some crazy is going to come out and start shit. Maybe they'll shoot a gynecologist working at Planned Parenthood. Maybe they'll shoot a member of Congress in the face. Maybe they'll make an attempt on President Obama. Or maybe they'll shoot up a Unitarian/Universalist church or a gay bar - where those libruls hang out.

Santorum is putting a bullet in the gun, spinning the cylinder, pointing the gun at us, and pulling the trigger. Click. Try again. Spin. Point. Click. Again. Some time, maybe tomorrow, maybe three years from now, the gun goes BANG! and somebody dies.

Santorum says the Democratic Party is all about homosexuality. Spin. Point. Click.

He says that Obama is not a real Christian... Spin. Point. Click.

He says that women are getting fetal testing to help them get abortions. Ladies... Spin. Point. Click.

When does the gun go off? Nobody knows for sure, but I'm sure the bastards have Vegas-style odds-makers on that job.

[Odin2005]

1. K&R

[Neue Regel]

2. You may want to loosen your tin foil hat a little

I understand you're trying to keep "them" out, but instead you're keeping all the crazies in!

[saras]

3. Nothing like a good couple of smear terms to raise the tone of an intellectual discussion...

I presume that's because that's the only argument you have.

[DirkGently]

4. I think it's a valid point. There are implications to labeling people murderers, etc.

I'd agree the idea that every kind of loaded rhetoric is a form of "terrorism" is a stretch. But any time you call upon religious fervor and suggest that your opponents hold views or do things that "god" condemns, you are inviting the fairly large number of zealots in the world to do what zealots always do -- kill in the name of their deity, regardless of secular laws or morals.

The whole POINT of religious-based campaigning is to claim that one party or leader represents "god," implying that the other is the enemy of "god." That's exactly what they're doing when abortion opponents frame their objections in terms of "murder of unborn babies."

What would people do to someone actually murdering babies? Work out a compromise? Consider the health and needs of the "murderer?" If they don't really mean it "that way," why do they always PUT IT that way?

Most people don't take religion literally. Most people recognize the secular view of rights and liberties is the proper framework.

But on some level, every time someone phrases these questions in terms of absolute, religious right or wrong, they're making an appeal to throw all those things away. I don't think you get a free pass when that actually happens, just because sane people would never take you at your word.

[lonestarnot]

5. certainly to dehumanizing. One of the steps in genocide. There are 10.

[Incitatus]

7. "Tiller the baby killer"

Hateful rhetoric from high profile individuals incites stupid people to do stupid things.

[backscatter712]

12. That is a very good example of stochastic terrorism.

Billo used that term "Tiller the Baby Killer" dozens of times on his show, and well, George Tiller ended up getting shot in his church.

[backscatter712]

11. Very enlightening, Poindexter.

Let's let DUers decide for themselves whether the incessant diet of violent, dehumanizing rhetoric from the right constitutes stochastic terrorism.

[Neue Regel]

45. Does it only count when the rhetoric is from people on the right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/maxine-waters-boehner-cantor_n_1281857.html

Maxine Waters: John Boehner And Eric Cantor Are 'Demons'

"I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens. Don't ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything," she said toward the end of her speech at the California Democratic Party convention over the weekend in San Diego. "These are demons. These are legislators who are destroying this country rather than bringing us together, creating jobs, making sure we have a good tax policy, bringing our jobs from back offshore, incentivizing those who keep their jobs here. They are bringing down this country, destroying this country, because they can."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090100858.html

The film, "Death of a President," has been alternatively derided as a tasteless publicity grab and defended as a serious look at a plausible event that could have dramatic ramifications for the world.

In the film, Bush is assassinated by a sniper after making a speech in Chicago in October 2007. The investigation immediately centers on a Syrian-born gunman, and a shocked nation confronts the war on terror in the post-Bush era.



Those are just a few examples. Are you equally concerned about the wave of stochastic terrorism that will be triggered by those words?

Given the number of people who listen to conservative talk radio, conservative politicians giving speeches, read conservative websites, read books written by conservatives, etc, one would expect the rivers to be running red with blood by now if your argument had any merit.

[loyalsister]

55. I'm glad you brought that up

I find violent rhetoric disturbing no matter who uses it. But, I'm not ready to accept an assumption that it inevitably incites acts of terrorism. I do believe the more suggestive language and symbols (cross hairs) more troubling.
Overall, I think whether it comes from the left or right or anywhere in between, it's simply a disgusting mind set that limits progress.

[EOTE]

65. So you go from "It's not an issue at all." to "But the dems do it too!"

You're not much for consistency, are you? You might notice too that republicans actually act out on this bullshit with violence, often times even killing people. That doesn't happen on the left, not nearly as often, anyway. But apparently you're fine with abortion providers, et al. being killed by these maniacs. Really? You defend this shit?

[krispos42]

67. Not red with blood, no

Most people vent on message boards, over drinks at the bar, through sarcastic jokes in everyday conversation, and maybe letters to the editor and phone calls to the congresscritter.

Both sides do this. It lets off steam. But it does cement the viewpoints in their heads. Obama is a Muslim, Obama is not a US citizen, etc. That is now set in stone in the minds of many people.

[BeHereNow]

14. Would you please explain what you mean by that statement?

Sorry, I have NO idea what you are trying to say.
Could you break it down for me?
Thanks-
BHN

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. It's happened already, or haven't you been paying attention?

[hatrack]

25. Affadavit: Man admits church shooting, says liberals should die

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- A man accused of fatally shooting two adults and wounding seven others at a Knoxville church told police the church's liberal teachings prompted him to attack, according to court papers.

Jim David Adkisson told investigators all liberals should be killed and admitted he shot people Sunday morning at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by CNN affiliate WBIR.

Also, a four-page letter police found in Adkisson's vehicle indicated he was motivated by frustration over being unable to obtain a job, authorities said Monday.

According to the affidavit requesting to search Adkisson's home, the suspect told investigators liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country. Adkisson also blamed Democrats for the country's decline, according to the affidavit.

"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 major media outlets," the affidavit said. "Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement ... he would then target those that had voted them into office."EDIT

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/

2009 Pittsburgh Police Shootings

The 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings was a shootout that took place on Saturday, April 4, 2009, at 1016 Fairfield Street[1] in the Stanton Heights neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, stemming from an argument over a dog urinating in the house between a mother and her 22-year-old son.[2] At approximately 7:11 a.m. EDT, 22-year-old Richard Poplawski opened fire on two Pittsburgh Police officers responding to a 911 call from Poplawski's mother, who was attempting to get the police officers to remove her son from the home.[2] Three police officers were ultimately confirmed dead, and another two were seriously injured.[3]

EDIT

Edward Perkovic, a friend of Poplawski, said the gunman feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon". Perkovic also stated that Poplawski "didn't like the Zionists controlling the media and controlling, you know, our freedom of speech" and that "He didn't like the control of the guns that was about to happen. He believed everything our forefathers put before us and thought that it was being distorted." Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said that Poplawski feared President Obama was going to take away his rights.[10]

Poplawski posted that he believed that "the federal government, mainstream media, and banking system in these United States are strongly under the influence of -- if not completely controlled by -- Zionist interest. An economic collapse of the financial system is inevitable, bringing with it some degree of civil unrest if not outright balkanization of the continental US, civil/revolutionary/racial war . . . This collapse is likely engineered by the elite Jewish powers that be in order to make for a power and asset grab."[11][12]

EDIT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pittsburgh_police_shootings

I-580 Shooter's Targets: ACLU & Tides Foundation

Here's a rather disturbing update on Byron Williams, the liberal-hating, parolee right-wing crazy guy who opened fire on the CHP last weekend.

Via KGO:

Court documents released Tuesday say Williams told investigators he intended to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco to kill people at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation, an organization that says it promotes economic justice.

"His plan was to go there and wait until it opens up in the morning; our investigators brought up to him that those organizations are probably closed on Sundays and he said he was going to wait until they opened up," Oakland Police Department spokesperson Jeff Thomason said.

Armed to the teeth, and as a third-striker, not particularly concerned with his fate, too:

When the officers tried to contact Williams, a 12-minute-long gun battle ensued. Williams, armed with three guns, including a .308-caliber rifle that can penetrate ballistic body armor and vehicles, eventually surrendered and exited the vehicle.

Williams was arraigned in Alameda County Superior Court Tuesday on four counts of attempted murder of a peace officer and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He received enhancements for wearing body armor. [Read more]

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/i-580-shooters-targets-aclu-and-tides-found

Suspect Charged in Holocaust Museum Attack

An 88-year-old white supremacist was charged with murder Thursday, a day after he left a signed anti-Semitic screed in his car outside the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, then gunned down a security guard who opened the door to let him in, officials said.

Guard Stephen T. Johns was shot to death Wednesday by Holocaust denier James von Brunn, who left his car outside an entrance to the museum and walked in holding a rifle at his side, District Police Chief Cathy Lanier said at a news conference.

Von Brunn started shooting immediately, exchanging fire with two other guards who shot and critically injured him, Lanier said.

In his car, officers found a notebook with a handwritten note that read, "You want my weapons — this is how you'll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews," according to a court affidavit.

EDIT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31237522/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/suspect-charged-holocaust-museum-attack/#.T0UzFPVnDpw

Oh, sorry, better take off the tin foil.

[GoneOffShore]

43. Have you not been paying attention for the last 60 years?

[socialindependocrat]

6. If Sanatarium is nuts enough to say it...

I suppose that people of like-mind are nuts enough to act upon it and think they're doing the party a favor.

[cliffordu]

8. Those who live by the sword.....

I hope God is paying attention.

Fuck them, if THEY get to petition the Lord with Prayer, so can I.

I'm not doing anything, nor will I -

just calling on my God for Justice.

[MustBeTheBooz]

23. When I was back there in Seminary School

There was a person there
Who put forth the proposition
That you can petition the Lord with prayer

Petition the Lord with prayer
Petition the Lord with prayer

You cannot petition the Lord with prayer!!!

~Jim M.

MBTB

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Does that mean Maxine Waters leads the charge on the Democratic side?

""I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens (at the convention). Don't ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons," she told the crowd. "They are bringing down this country, destroying this country, because they’d rather do whatever they can do destroy this president rather than for the good of this country.”

Spin. Point. Click. That about right? Or can you find some kind of justification for her words, and/or something that separates and distinguishes her words from Sanitoriums? I'd argue that her words were much more pointed than his. No such thing as a Democratic lone wolf crazy? Can you say John Wayne? As in Gacy?

[backscatter712]

10. The difference...

On the Democratic side, those kinds of remarks are not happening habitually, and they're called out, by fellow Democrats.

It's the Republicans that keeps making those remarks over, and over, and over, and over, and over, who brush off complaints about it, and keep doing it even after people start getting shot.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Like the way we called out McClurkin, who called us child killers, and that was followed

up with Rick Warren, days after he equated us to pedophiles and incestuous couples? Like how when we did call them out we were told it was 'poutrage' and 'pony wanting'? Like the way no one apologized for using those hate speakers?
The thing is, there are physical attacks on gay people daily, and those who preach against us using God's name and those who allow them platform to do so are exactly as you say Santorum is. There is no 'safe amount' of noxious slanders to heap on a minority group. There is no 'allowed measure' of haters on a campaign.
I among others tried to say during all that 'God in the mix' ex gay, anti gay stuff out of the OFA that the next round would include the GOP going after straight people as well. Those who did not stand against the slanders and dogma then helped make Ricky's candidacy a reality.

[lapislzi]

27. Maxine Waters does not have a daily radio show

that is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, or on national television.

Maxine Waters is a fairly minor player, as politicians go. She is not a candidate for the highest office in the land, calling out the President as a false Christian, or announcing that Satan is taking over America.

I will make no excuses for her appalling statements. They are indefensible. But how many people is she reaching with those words, compared to others with national and international audiences?

Let's make a pair of lists.

Stochastic terrorism: left wing
Maxine Waters
Any others? I'm open to suggestions, because I'm sure there are, but I don't know of them.

Stochastic terrorism: right wing
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Anne Coulter
Sean Hannity
Glenn Beck
Pat Robertson
James Dobson
Laura Ingraham

And that's off the top of my head! I don't even follow blogs like Right Wing Watch unless there's an article I've been directed to.

So let's be sure we're operating at parity.

[meanit]

49. To try and equate

the effect of Maxine Water's and other Democrat's statements to the 24/7/365 non-stop right wing hate machine on radio & TV is really kind of absurd.

[BeHereNow]

15. I remember a speaker I heard 10 or so years ago talking about this-

Back then, I thought, "Well there is no way that could happen in America."

He said the rise of nutcase x-tians, neocon think tanks spewing hate and
extremist ideology would lead to an unprecedented rise in domestic terrorism.

Turns out he was right.

To this day, I want to know why Palin was not charged with inciting
stochastic terrorism that resulted in the shooting of Gabby Giffords and innocent
bystanders.

http://www.alan.com/2010/03/24/palin-puts-gun-sighs-on-target-map-says-ti/

If that was not a case of inciting domestic terrorism, I'd hate to see what is.
BHN

[ljm2002]

17. So true...

...I await the day when they put O'Reilly in handcuffs for inciting the murder of Dr. Tiller by his repeated use of the phrase "Tiller the Baby Killer".

Of course that day will never come, O'Reilly kept his own hands "clean" by not committing any overt act, just inciting another crazy out there to do it for him.

I for one will never ever forgive him for that. When I see his face, I see the face of a murderer. Just as surely as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

[BeHereNow]

20. Have you read Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"

Some of us went to hear his book talks when this book was published.
His legal argument was air tight and based on the same framework
that lead to the prosecution of Charles Manson for murder, even though
he was not present at the scenes of the crimes.

I see the hate talk show hosts and people like Palin and Breitbarf in exactly
the same way- Palin could be prosecuted for the shooting of Giffords and others
under Bugliosi's legal premise.

BHN
On edit: link to the book website:
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/index.php

[MustBeTheBooz]

24. Exactly!

[JoePhilly]

18. Shake the crazy tree, and maybe a few nuts will fall out.

And then act surprised when it happens.

[backscatter712]

19. "No one could have ever predicted!"

How many times are we going to hear that line?

[The Doctor.]

21. This is why I think liberals and LGBT individuals should get armed.

I look at it this way: We have many crazy, violent wingnut assholes with guns. It can't possibly hurt if more sane, responsible, and civilized people went armed.

[MustBeTheBooz]

26. Mutually Assured Destruction?

MBTB

[The Doctor.]

28. Is a proven deterrent.

It's one of the reasons the world is not currently a giant ball of radioactive glass.

In this case, just like the potential that hate speech has to incite, the notion that your targets may be armed has the potential to deter. Not every would-be terrorist wants to wind up dead in the process.

[randome]

29. The Doctor would not approve.

Especially David Tennant.

[The Doctor.]

31. False.

That Doctor engaged in brinksmanship very often.

If the choice is between one faction dying at the hands of another, or both factions living due to the likelyhood of unacceptable casualties, The Doctor would opt for the second option.

Every. Single. Time.

And he has, many times.

[MustBeTheBooz]

46. Not every would-be hero would make the best decision.

At a macro/global level I would probably agree. But at the micro/community level maybe not so much. It also has the potential to go horribly wrong. The thought of everybody armed out of fear seems bothersome at best to me for many reasons. But that's just me.



MBTB

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Ironic thread is ironic

[The Doctor.]

30. What is the irony?

Pointing out a very real threat and raising very justifiable concern? I get that there is some irony in being afraid of those instilled with fear and hatred, but that does not in any way detract from the reality of the threat.

The difference here is that the wingnuts are hateful, insane, and violent while most liberals favor civility and reason. Being in favor of reason, I believe we should treat this threat seriously and find a civilized solution wherever possible. The wingnuts are not interested in 'civilized solutions' to anything.

That contrast certainly dwarfs any irony here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. You know, I'm in a really awesome mood right now.

I don't feel like having serious discussions (I have an OP in the Lounge if you're curious/bored enough).

Some deranged person uses FB to try and hire an assassin to kill people wearing fur. Are you willing to charge people who cry, "Fur is murder! with "stochastic terrorism"?

The OP is just as much fear mongering as the threats it presumes to warn against. If some crackpot takes a pre-emptive potshot at Santorum or a catholic church should the OP be charged with "stochastic terrorism"?

Santorum is a narrow-minded idiot who says a lot of narrow-minded idiotic stuff but I'm not seeing any impending violence. Let's try not to add hysteria to the already frothy mix.

[The Doctor.]

38. If you're averse to 'serious discussion', then I recommend staying away from one,

rather than try to 'mitigate' its 'seriousness'.

You've deliberately overlooked the crucial aspects of 'scope' and 'media exposure' that make the subject of this OP a very serious one.

If you don't want 'serious', then by all means, stick to the lounge. I promise when I get sick of it here, I'll join you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. I gave a serious rejoinder. If you choose to ignore that fact that's not my fault

I'll repeat --

Some deranged person uses FB to try and hire an assassin to kill people wearing fur. Are you willing to charge people who cry, "Fur is murder! with "stochastic terrorism"?

The OP is just as much fear mongering as the threats it presumes to warn against. If some crackpot takes a pre-emptive potshot at Santorum or a catholic church should the OP be charged with "stochastic terrorism"?

[The Doctor.]

42. I didn't, but you ignored my deliberate response and then accused me of ignorance.

Re-read it until you see how I addressed your 'point'. If it went over your head, 'that's not my fault'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. The DKos article is dumb enough to refute itself

It claims Beck, O'Reilly etc use mass-communications to ramp up lone actors -- but then it notices Bin laden and al Awlaki types doing the same thing. Did al Awlaki have a primetime national television show to inspire Major Hassan to shoot-up Ft. Hood?

No.

If you don't need mass communications then it just takes communications and a willing psychotic. That being the case, my example of the woman trying to hire an assassin to murder people who wear fur would implicate harder-edged animal rights activists as the motivators for her would-be ideologically-based violence. This is an actual article I read on DU today, not a hypothetical.

I would also add DKos is rather hypocritical. They too had a map with crosshairs over Rep. Giffords' district as well as a poster that wrote Giffords is "dead to me." While they were running around piling-on others they scrubbed the posts to cover their own "stochastic terrorism." Nevermind the fact Loughner is described as rejecting the MSM and obsessed with the movie Zeitgeist.

The OP pretends to be clever in its hand-wringing but its just a way to stir-up hysteria. To what end? Should Santorum be jailed? Banned from running for president? Censored? Unless practical remedies are offered its only noise and smoke meant to ramp-up emotions and then it mocks itself.

[The Doctor.]

53. If it's possible to 'reason in ignorance', you've just demonstrated it.

Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders being able to whip up their followers without mass media does not contradict the point of the article even slightly. The point here, whether we're talking about jihaadists or animal rights groups, is that if you communicate enough fear and hatred to your listeners you raise the likely-hood that one or more of them will take violent action.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'LA LALALA LA!' as loud as you want and you will not change that fact.

Your examples fail to take into account the different philosophical basis and mental health of the different audiences as well. It's just plain stupid to try to force parity between animal rights activists and the anti-choice assholes who have killed many more people (I really don't know if any 'lone wolf' animal rights activist has killed anyone at all)

Why you're working so hard to convince anyone that what the OP describes 'isn't a threat' is very curious. The only other time I've heard an argument like yours was from an O'Reilly fan. Not that you are, of course...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. The OP is about stochastic terrorism

If the issue is incitement to violence you do not get to pick and choose but have to judge equally every time an offense is committed or you just approve of violence when it's causes you support.

War bad. Killing bad. Hate bad.

[The Doctor.]

56. You've hit the deep end of irrational.

So what the OP describes isn't a threat we should be worried about because animal rights activists are just as likely to commit violence as wingnuts? 'Twisted' is an apt description here.

One more time:

"It's just plain stupid to try to force parity between animal rights activists and the anti-choice assholes who have killed many more people (I really don't know if any 'lone wolf' animal rights activist has killed anyone at all)."

If that is lost on you, then we're done here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. "killed many more people"

You're just playing a numbers game. That's like saying the man who only killed his wife to escape a messy divorce is better than the man who is a sexual serial killer. Neither should ever be allowed to see the light of day ever again.

But even then your contention fails on its own merits as a seach of "animal rights activist attack" reveals -- to me -- a startling number of incidences involving acid, arson, bombings and the sort; and no, these are not the metaphorical, rhetorical sorts of attacks, these are actual violent assaults.

Both anti-choicers and so-called animal rights activists who engage in acts of violence should be stuffed into deep, dark holes where they can never again torment anyone. Ditto any others, regardless of the "cause" any others might pretend to serve. However, the violent and the violent alone bear the full responsibility for their crimes. Disagreement, even profound and sometimes emotional disagreement, is not incitement to violence.

This is the same nonsense as RWers claiming all genuine efforts to alleviate poverty and pointing-out the emotionally wrenching stories of the effects of poverty are trying to whip-up the pro-communist fervor that resulted in 100 million murders in hitory's worst tyrannies. That's not a debate about poverty or society's obligation to its own; it's nothing more than a cynical effort to silence/shame people who advocate for social justice.

[The Doctor.]

58. So you're arguing that it's just as bad to incite animal rights activists

as it is to incite wingnuts.

Great, we agree.


It's a terrible practice and this kind of terrorism should be stopped.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. We do in fact agree

But what constitutes "incitement"?

If we claim someone is sending nod-nod-wink-wink hints then no public speaker is safe. I'm sure you can see the danger of that sword cutting both ways. That's my main contention; we imperil our own causes if we set-up such subjectively defined standards.

[The Doctor.]

61. The lines are too easily drawn to permit a 'slippery slope' argument.

It's pretty simple, actually:

If a person uses mass-media to falsely communicate that any person is some kind of a threat that 'should be dealt with' or in any way insinuates that action should be taken, they should have their platform removed and be fined. If a crime is committed and the perp cites the person as the reason for it and the above criteria was met, the person should be charged with a class E felony as would someone making a false bomb threat in NY.


Role play a few examples if you'd like. It is not difficult to identify the line between incitement and reporting.

[onenote]

62. You say its not difficult to identify the line between incitement and reporting.

I say that we should be extremely wary of giving the government the power to identify that line and punish those the government concludes is on the wrong side of it. I don't want repubs running a "ministry of truth" and neither should you.

[The Doctor.]

63. No, I said 'easily drawn'.

It's an important distinction.

If the line is draw at 'could/might/possibly', then the potential for abuse would be very high. However, if the case can only be made where certain elements are present, then the potential for abuse is negligible.

In this case, I imagine that it would be Republicans that would fight tooth and nail in order to preserve the operational value of the great lie machine. They block anything that created the possibility of holding people like O'Reilly responsible for the violence their rhetoric foments.

[The Doctor.]

40. Ummm.... wut?

Talk about an exercise in irrelevance.


So you're saying that one printed opinion by a nobody in an opinion piece rises to the level of Bill O'Reilly telling millions of people that an OBGYN is a 'Baby-Killer'?

This is a reality-based place (for the most part). So stuff like this is pretty much seen for what it is.

Enjoy your stay.

[ThoughtCriminal]

32. In reality

They're putting six bullets in and aiming at their own foot.

[backscatter712]

36. Or playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic... n/t

[The Doctor.]

41. Played that a few times....

Never went first though.

[libtodeath]

34. There is

no doubt that they wish us all dead so almost certainly this is the plan.

[JDPriestly]

35. And this is why we have to remain non-violent and remind

ourselves not to join in the fray.

Stirring up mass hysteria can backfire. It is not the way to achieve change that lasts and builds a better way of life.

[BleedBlueUSA]

47. Knock out Republican's front runners SCREW UP THEIR PRIMARY we'll vote "Ron Paul"

If you want to skip the crap coming from the top candidates knock them out of the race. We can do it if we organize around one Republican candidate who's lower on the totem pole and get them elected as their nominee. A few years ago Rush Limbaugh messed with the Democrat Primary by telling Republicans to vote as Democrats in the Primary. How about returning the deed? Everybody should show up on election day to vote in "Ron Paul" for Republican nominee. He hasn't won a single state yet and it should be an easy victory in November for Obama. Check your states primary date http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/

[tblue37]

51. No. Ron Paul appeals to low-information liberal and Democratic voters, especially

young people of the sort that made such a difference for Obama in 2008. He would have a better time in the general election than either Romney or Santorum, and he also has a Dean-like ground-up organization.

He isn't doing well in the Republican primaries because (1) the powers that be, including the media, deliberately exclude him from coverage precisely because he could threaten the Chosen One, and (2) he rejects a lot of the red meat sogans, especially the culture war and foreign war stuff, that the front-runners throw to the base.

One reason Romney and Santorum would struggle in the general is that they have to throw red meat to the base to win the nomination, and that makes them unpalatable to other voters in the general election. But Ron Paul refuses to offer up the stuff for the base that would alienate independent voters or wobbly liberals and Democrats who are frustrated with Obama. A lot of them don't know enough about Paul, so they are attracted to some of his libertarian stances without realizing how extreme and bizarre many of his positions are.

[gulliver]

48. Knowledge is responsibility.

That's one of the main reasons Republicans resent knowledge.

[meanit]

50. If Santorum, the GOP, the wild eyed Fox news

screwballs, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest ARE NOT trying to stir up crazies with their "the Liberals are coming for your children in the night" style rehtoric, will someone please tell what the hell they ARE trying accomplish then?

[chrisa]

64. They're trying to cater to their delusional base by using hyperbole.

It's more sensationalism than anything.

[Major Nikon]

52. I sincerely hope you're not serious about this

Certainly at some level the wingnuts' rhetoric stirs up the nutjobs, but claiming that this is really their intent AND they actually have people spinning the numbers and telling them what to say to further that outcome is more than just a little bit nutty. For one thing, the wingnuts just aren't that smart. For another thing, even if they were actually that smart to come up with something like this, they would be smart enough to realize such things are counterproductive. McVeigh shut down the militia movement virtually overnight. The first shooting of Dr. Tiller led to the 1994 abortion clinic access law which has turned Operation Rescue into a shell of its former self. The assassignation of Dr. Tiller turned him into a martyr and further eroded public sympathy for the militant anti-choice nutbags. It also led to a Grand Jury investigation into their organizations and federal marshall protection for threatened abortion doctors.

[socialist_n_TN]

59. Have you ever considered that they don't think that far ahead?.....

Or that they don't CARE that it will be counter productive in the short term? By their way of thinking, cracking down on RWers by government would be a winning proposition that could/should bring more adherents to their cause. And even if it's not a governmental crackdown, even short term unpopularity won't matter if you believe in your cause over the long term.

[krispos42]

66. Interesting and empirically true.

They're increasing the odds that a random somebody will attack/shoot/blow up something.