There’s been a great deal of commentary about the attempted assassination of Congresswaman Gabrielle Giffords and the deadly rampage that followed, with some eager to pin blame on pugnacious conservative rhetoric, and others denying the link.
At The New Republic David Rieff offers a sharply worded intervention. “There is really no doubt that the apocalyptic rhetoric that is the common currency of the Becks, Palins, Limbaughs, and worse has the potential to make unstable people murderous.”
Perhaps. But I find myself thinking that the pervasive violence on movies, TV, and in computer games offers a far more likely source. We live in an era in which fantasies of death and destruction are commonplace in mainstream forms of entertainment. Quentin Tarantino’s movies traffic in highly eroticized images of violence that make the rhetoric of conservative talk radio seem positively bland.
That said, I’m not happy about the verbal violence of political discourse. We are social animals with social instincts, and we take pleasure in the excitation of those instincts, as Goebbels and Hitler knew so well. I remember listening to Michael Savage a few years ago, thinking that he has mastered the art of providing his listeners with the political equivalent of pornography.
Political pornography is not limited to the Right. The Left does not rely as much on the pleasures that come from feeling one’s anger stimulated and affirmed. Instead, the preferring feeling is one of superior disdain, which explains part of the appeal of Colbert, Jon Stewart, and a certain senator from Minnesota. This sentiment of disdain, which is pleasurable to feel because it gives encourages a sense of justified dominance, probably does not encourage violence, but it does contribute to the tendency of people on the Left to dismiss and ignore their fellow citizens.
The man who killed in Tucson (whose name I’m determined not to remember) seems to have been mentally ill. It’s probably unwise, therefore, to draw general conclusions from his murderous actions. In fact, his mental instability tempts me to point out that the Left has generated rhetoric that has underwritten all sorts of violence perpetrated by seemingly sane people who style themselves “revolutionaries.” But I’ll leave that aside.
More germane, I think, is the general way in which the rise of political pornography on the Left and Right (motivated by the fact that, like erotic pornography, it sells) tends to make public life crude and ugly.
January 11th, 2011 | 12:51 pm
What our culture has contributed to both verbal and physical violence is what you yourself commented on a while back–sovereign desire. Our culture encourages everyone to obey their own desires, says they’re repressed or crazy if they don’t act on their desires. To the extent that people do this, and that marketers and journalists can manipulate those desires, then people and their actions can be steered by those in control of the media. Critical thinking is almost non-existent among average Americans; self-control becomes rarer and rarer. The flaw is not in the Right or the Left, but in the broader culture that doesn’t acknowledge the instability injected into a culture whose citizens have lost the ability to control the acting-out of their own desires.
January 11th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
… except that Mr. Tarantino killed off Goebbels and Hitler in his last film–does that count for political pornography? Thank goodness someone around here still finds enlightement in that stale trope of Holier-than-Thou. I forgot that all Hollywood directors are polemicists, rhetoricians, rhapsodies of BIG BAD LEFT WING CULTURE, not just mere minions of Mamon.
January 11th, 2011 | 1:16 pm
The aversion shown by so many to military or martial metaphors is a sign of the degeneracy and effeminacy of large portions of our current culture.
January 11th, 2011 | 1:28 pm
American popular culture is one big open cesspool . . . unfortunately many of those now calling for restrictions and restraint on confrontational political speech paved the way for the degradation of American popular culture; i.e., lifting restrictions on pornography and pornographic violence. After all, as they liked to say, who are you to judge what consenting adults watch and listen to? You reap what you sow….
January 11th, 2011 | 1:56 pm
Relativism and amoralism (not the same thing, but they are easily conjoined) eventually come home to roost. For those readers who are teachers in a secular environment, try this sometime in a classroom: Just ask, “Is murder morally wrong?” You’ll get a whole lot of talk, but very few flat responses of “Yes.” (I would estimate around five percent, maybe a bit more.) And this is from students who are supposedly mentally stable!
Has anyone else noticed that no mainstream commentary is pointing out that the shooter is a strident atheist? Instead of blaming Sarah Palin, why isn’t anyone blaming Richard Dawkins and the other dysangelistic New Atheists?
January 11th, 2011 | 1:57 pm
The current criticism of rightist rhetoric, including the referenced article and the above post, entirely ignores the years of leftist verbal attacks on George W. Bush. A play was written and produced about killing him. A book was written and published about assassinating him. It was completely ordinary and respectable to wish in public that he would die or be killed. Superior disdain is only one strand of nasty leftist discourse. Plain viciousness is just as common, if not more so. Check out Keith Olbermann, for example, for a prominent example; there is much worse on the blogs.
And I would like someone to produce one example of apocalyptic rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh. Or Sarah Palin, for that matter. I have always been struck by how ignorant Limbaugh’s critics are of both his style and his substance. It is hard to believe any of them have ever listened to him for 15 minutes.
January 11th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
Well put, Brian.
Along the line of Brian’s observations, I point fellow readers to Stephen Carter’s volume, “Civility.”
January 11th, 2011 | 2:17 pm
While I share many of your concerns, I wonder if we are forgetting that American political language has always been rough and tumble. It is not so much something new and I’d be willing to bet that for the most part it is relatively tame compared to a lot of 19th century stuff. Heck, we had a sitting Vice President of the U.S., Aaron Burr, shoot Alexander Hamilton in a duel over a perceived slight. I’m not trying to excuse our current culture — we ought to do better, but there is a tendency to hand-wring about our political language as if it spells the end of the republic, when in fact the country has survived just fine for a couple of centuries with a fairly strong history of violent rhetoric.
January 11th, 2011 | 2:29 pm
It’s notable that there is no actual connection shown between conservative rhetoric and the killer’s actions, and his obsession with the congresswoman dates from 2007.
Also ignored is the fact that the recent mass murders have been committed by paranoid schizophrenics, most of whom have been flagged as unstable and dangerous by friends and associates. In fact the sheriff currently featured on the media bloviating about right-wing hate talk ignored warnings about the killer. If the left hadn’t insisted that keeping dangerous schizophrenics in mental wards was a violation of their privacy rights, this guy and other like him would have been locked up for the protection of the public. The emptying of the mental hospitals in the 1970s was an important though generally unacknowledged factor in the deterioration of our society.
January 11th, 2011 | 3:15 pm
But wasn’t there a time when Bibles printed in an European vernacular were considered “political pornography” by the Pope? Given such an historical dynamic, I sense nothing exceptional in equating the pornographic polemics of 13th century Wycliffe to those of 21st century movie peddlers.
January 11th, 2011 | 3:17 pm
If one wants to make the blood libel that there “is really no doubt that the apocalyptic rhetoric that is the common currency of the Becks, Palins, Limbaughs, and worse has the potential to make unstable people murderous” wouldn’t some examples beyond an ill conceived map with targeting crosshairs be in order? After all we are talking about an accusation of incitement to murder here.
Politics is ‘war by another means’. Political discourse has always included violent and even apocalyptic imagery and our own history is littered with examples (including a great Civil War) of times when our political discourse has spilled the banks into open violence. But given the recent examples that come to mind of political assassinations — it is madness and not overheated political rhetoric that seems to be by far the largest contributing factor….
And btw the idea that somehow the besetting sin of the Left is you know “a cool disdain” that simply “dismisses and ignores” fellow citizens amounts (I am afraid) to a whitewash of the mountain of bodies dating at least back to the French Revolution that can be attributed to ideologies of the left.
January 11th, 2011 | 3:18 pm
Craig Payne –
Maybe because, so far as I’ve seen, the only thing I’ve seen anyone say about him in that regard is that “…he wasn’t too keen on religion, from what I could tell.”
What if he was a strident agnostic? Even more relevant, considering he was apparently rather blurry in terms of politics, why would you expect crystal clarity from him in terms of religion?
In any case, whatever the guy’s affiliations might turn out to be, it’s worth remembering what Larry Niven said: “There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks.”
January 11th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
I am with Judy K. Warner here. I have not forgotten eight years of truly violent language attacking George W. Bush, not to mention hanging and burning and beheading in effigy! Sheesh! It must be nice to just flush all that down the memory hole!
Whose demonstrations are angrier? Seems to me that the March for Life and those Glenn Beck demonstrations are much more peaceful than the ones at the G-20, for example.
Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are not, in fact, particularly angry and vitriolic in their rhetoric. Limbaugh would not have lasted for 20 years if rage were his stock in trade. He’s not the one who’s always naming someone “the worst person in the world.”
Finally, where is the connection between the shooter and ANY conservative at all? There is just NO evidence, none. The shooter actually developed a grudge against Rep. Giffords in 2007, before Sarah Palin was even a national figure and before the Tea Party existed. He never refers to Limbaugh in all of his rambling material online. How irresponsible it is to keep on implying that connection when there is no evidence! Yet how many people will remember the false connection long after the story is over?
January 11th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a hermaphrodite.
And today we worry about some raised voices and martial metaphors …
Yeesh!
January 11th, 2011 | 4:32 pm
Rieff: “…there is really no doubt…”
Whenever I see such words, I mentally translate it as “I can’t provide any evidence, but it just fits comfortably with what my friends and I think.”
Therapists are trained to take notice of words such as “always” and “never.” Much is behind them.
As to the violent and pornographic movies, games, and music – the evidence isn’t there that they cause any increase in crime. We might think it plausible – we might find specialised cases and nuances as we study them – we might think them wrong on their own account regardless of their impact on the crime statistics – but at the moment, we cannot lay crime at their doorstep(s). Violent crime and sexual crime are decreasing slowly.
January 11th, 2011 | 4:40 pm
Rieff’s piece was shallow partisanship.
This piece goes to the heart of the matter.
January 11th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
If the ‘other Steve’ had not done it, I would have ‘seconded’ Brian’s comments, esp., “Critical thinking is almost non-existent among average Americans” and we could easily substitute average Christian.
Political rhetoric merits discussion. But on the topic of the shooter, Reno’s summary says it best, “…It’s probably unwise, therefore, to draw general conclusions from his murderous actions.”
That was also David Brooks’ key point last night on PBS news:
“…First, David, do you believe the Tucson sheriff was right to suggest there was a connection between the Tucson shootings and vitriolic political speech?
“DAVID BROOKS: So far, there’s no — absolutely no evidence to that. I think there’s evidence to the other side.
“If you look at what Jared Loughner, do — we don’t know much about him, but we know a few things about him. One, that he made these videos which really described an attempt, and a very confused attempt, by an apparently mentally ill person to try to make sense of their lives…
“So, I think most of the rhetoric and most of the arguments that have been made about civility, as, God knows I’m in favor of it, but it’s completely not germane to the tragedy in Tucson.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/rhetoric_01-10.html
And THAT is the key point that is lost in all the rhetoric about the rhetoric.
January 11th, 2011 | 5:10 pm
Its…..its……..its………its almost as if the more strident voices on the left had the blame Palin, Beck and Limbaugh narratives already written and “in the can”. just waiting for an accommodating news flash to plug in precise names, dates and details. But that couldn’t be, could it?
Judy K. Warner is spot on. For decades the left pushed for deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill, because deep in their hearts they believed “people were basically ‘good’.” Now they have it and are discovering the contrary – to their regret. Surprise! People are exactly as scripture tells us, imperfect and inclined toward evil.
Also, baconboy is correct about political speech’s character. It may be rude and pugnacious, but without free speech this nation would likely cease to exist in three election cycles – barring divine intervention, of course.
January 11th, 2011 | 6:29 pm
T.V., movies, and video games may glorify violence but they don’t incite violence. That’s surely an important difference. The argument of Phillip Rieff is that the aggressive, trigger-happy rhetoric of Sarah Palin and others, which is animated by contempt and not just disagreement, is potentially an incitement to violence. If this is morally condemnable–the only relevant issue–then certain Republicans have a lot to answer for.
January 11th, 2011 | 6:40 pm
I agree–the mentally ill should be off the streets at the expense of tax-payers, the only question is which route: prisons or hospitals? The first is politically sexier (or should I say “politically pornographic”?), the latter certainly more compassionate. Why not repeal Obamacare and channel the funds saved to the private prison-building and administrating industries? The Church has a long history of ministering to those behind bars.
January 11th, 2011 | 7:32 pm
As everybody really knows, the difference between violently taking a human life by surgical abortion and violently taking the life of a born human being is only the age of the victim. Public toleration of the latter – the violent killing of those who are obviously members of the human family, visibly being nothing less than, albeit small, human beings – results in the desensitization of society to violence. The lack of a visible, appropriate response to surgical abortion, it being so plainly a violent, homicidal attack on innocent human beings, not only paves the way for enlarging the segment of the human family the killing of which will be tolerated by society, it also declares that violence is indeed a reasonable course of action to those inclined to use it as a means to achieve their ends. Condemnations of violence ring hollow, and the exploitation of its victims for political ends is particularly vile, when lethal violence is tolerated, advocated and “legalized,” as long as it is directed towards a segment of the human family who have been officially written off by the establishment bigotry of our times. As long as the establishment message is that bigotry excuses violence, there will always be those who don’t see the need to wait for their particular bigotry to be officially sanctioned and mainstreamed before resorting to violence against those who are the “objects” of their bigotry.
January 11th, 2011 | 9:13 pm
I think Gergen, Brooks, and Reno have got the main point right–nothing that happened in Tuscon has to do with politics or the way in which our discourse is presently being carried–though I too wish our discourse were better than it is.
On a side note, it would perhaps be nice if violence were less eroticized in video games and Tarintino movies. But so far as I can tell, there isn’t a study that shows (and no evidence) that these things are linked to increased violence. In fact, the evidence would seem to cut the other way. There are countries in which the movies and games are as violent or more so and in which there is less violence of the sort we just witnessed. If video games and movies accounted for this sort of thing, the correlation should hold across countries.
January 11th, 2011 | 9:24 pm
harry –
Thank goodness there’s no overblown, demonizing rhetoric here!
(Mayhap you should read http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/05/unavailable-people/ )
January 11th, 2011 | 10:00 pm
Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are not, in fact, particularly angry and vitriolic in their rhetoric. Limbaugh would not have lasted for 20 years if rage were his stock in trade. He’s not the one who’s always naming someone “the worst person in the world.”
Olberman has put that segment on hold and will debut it with a new name. Would that someone on the Right would likewise take a backwards step. No Limbaugh doesn’t trade in rage. He trades in demonization and disdain, and puts Everything liberals and progressives do in the worst possible light, and the Christian Right loves him. Jeannine, Judy K. Warner: what did Jesus trade in? Do you want a witness, or do you want to feel righteous anger?
January 11th, 2011 | 10:14 pm
The lack of a visible, appropriate response to surgical abortion, it being so plainly a violent, homicidal attack on innocent human beings, not only paves the way for enlarging the segment of the human family the killing of which will be tolerated by society, it also declares that violence is indeed a reasonable course of action to those inclined to use it as a means to achieve their ends
Do you have any evidence to back this up, Harry? I’m pro-life, and I also think you’re fantasizing.
January 11th, 2011 | 10:44 pm
Was the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill simply a left vs. right thing? Funny, but I don’t remember conservative budget cutters of the time drawing the line at cutting services for the mentally ill. Does anyone else remember that?
Listening to Rush Limbaugh is a guilty pleasure for many Christians, and, indeed, they should feel guilty about it. Rush talks trash, as anyone who has really listened knows. “Political pornography” is apt.
Which is not to say he had anything to do with Tuscon.
January 12th, 2011 | 6:58 am
Rush Limbaugh spends most of his time talking about the issues and explaining them to the listeners. He provides a good education by analyzing current issues, criticizing the take of liberals and providing a free-market or conservative analysis. I wouldn’t call his attitude toward his opponents disdain; it’s more like mocking. He’s funny, unlike most of the leftists who take on conservatives.
The emptying of the mental hospitals was not a left-right issue at the time. But there was not much of a principled right, just Nixon Republicans and some marginalized conservatives. It would be interesting to look at old issues of National Review and see what their position was. However, conservatives saw the bad consequences — I remember the psychiatrist Torrey Fuller writing about it in the early 1980s in Policy Review. I don’t remember any liberals criticizing the policy, but there may have been some I didn’t read.
January 12th, 2011 | 7:04 am
[...] causes leading to violence, why has the left echo chamber jumped for rhetoric and not something like this? Perhaps it wasn’t self-serving [...]
January 12th, 2011 | 7:09 am
[...] causes leading to violence, why has the left echo chamber jumped for rhetoric and not something like this? Perhaps it wasn’t self-serving [...]
January 12th, 2011 | 9:31 am
David C – I see the two as related. There are those who do not dirty their own hands but justify the violence of others. CS Lewis had a fair bit to say about this.
January 12th, 2011 | 9:32 am
Rush Limbaugh spends most of his time talking about the issues and explaining them to the listeners. He provides a good education by analyzing current issues, criticizing the take of liberals and providing a free-market or conservative analysis.
Like all ideologues, Limbaugh’s analysis covers all the facts that bolster his position and none of the ones that call it into question. When intelligent people are deluded into thinking he’s giving them all the relevant facts, one has to wonder if they aren’t choosing to be credulous.
I wouldn’t call his attitude toward his opponents disdain; it’s more like mocking. He’s funny, unlike most of the leftists who take on conservatives.
And the humor redeems the mockery? Should we mock you, Judy? Because you’re a sinner like Obama and like all the rest of us, and in your sin you look just as foolish. Honestly, you’re on a Christian blog here, so I assume you’re a Christian. Did Christ call us to speak the truth in love to our opponents or to mock them? And when we mock them, how in the world are they supposed to see the love of God? Is it any wonder the Christian Right gets so little respect?
January 12th, 2011 | 9:33 am
>>Thank goodness there’s no overblown, demonizing rhetoric here!
To someone who is unwilling to deal with the reality of abortion any accurate description seems overblown.
January 12th, 2011 | 10:05 am
When I first started paying attention in the 1980s, many anti-statist conservatives and libertarians would favorably cite Thomas Szasz, the libertarian psychiatrist who called mental illness a “myth.” I first heard about the problems of de-institutionalization a couple of decades ago on the NPR news show All Things Considered. I do not see that it is insightful or fruitful to try to create some rigid taxonomy of left/right ideas and people in our national conversation. There is just more flow than that. Rush Limbaugh’s rendering of history is seriously disingenuous. If nothing good comes from the Left, are we to prefer Bull Connor to Martin Luther King, Jr.?
January 12th, 2011 | 10:10 am
David Gray – To someone who is unwilling to deal with the reality of abortion any accurate description seems overblown.
Harry said: “As everybody really knows, the difference between violently taking a human life by surgical abortion and violently taking the life of a born human being is only the age of the victim.”
As David Mills said on this very site (which I linked to), “The young… know which arguments are so clear that the person who disagrees can only be willfully rejecting the truth. The young, in this case, don’t know beans.”
Some people honestly don’t believe that a blastula without a brain could possibly be a human being. Even many months into fetal development, the brain just is not fully-formed; the connections between sections of the brain simply haven’t grown yet. They believe that there are indeed differences between a “born human being” and a developing fetus beyond just “the age of the victim”.
Harry (and apparently you) don’t think that’s possible. Such people must “really” know they are wrong, and are simply lying about what they believe and why.
What do you think about the atheists who say that religious people “really” know they are just fooling themselves?
January 12th, 2011 | 10:13 am
“What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country.” – Rush Limbaugh
January 12th, 2011 | 10:26 am
I’d like to know how rifle sights over congressional districts is a part of a culture of life? Today we read that Palin is responding to critics by accusing them of blood libel. Blood libel!
And she’s also insisting that there’s no cultural connection, rather simply individual responsibility. Individual responsibility from a guy who may well have been paranoid schizophrenic, yet who possessed a powerful handgun with a 31-round clip, and who clearly increasingly struggled to understand the world around him as he entered his twenties.
And yesterday Rush goes on the air to say that Loughner knows that a particular political party stands firmly behind him: “What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country.”
Why should I not interpret Palin’s and Limbaugh’s responses as perfect exemplifications of the rancorous and irresponsible environment of hysterical overstatement they are so quick to dismiss as irrelevant? Words matter.
January 12th, 2011 | 4:52 pm
T.B. Root, I forgot about Thomas Szasz. Yes, libertarians were enamored of him, and leftists were enamored of J.D. Laing. Laing believed, or purported to believe, as I recall, that schizophrenics were not really sick, but reacting rationally to a sick society. So they should not be treated, let alone locked up, but the rest of us should profit from their insights. Or something like that. Both guys did a lot of harm.
(Of all the things I’m grateful for, right near the top is that it is no longer the 1970s. The thought of reliving that decade makes my hair stand on end.)
January 12th, 2011 | 10:59 pm
harry wrote:
Ray Ingles wrote:
Well, take a good look at pictures of the bodies of the Nazi Holocaust victims. Such pictures are easy to find. Then take a look at the mangled bodies of babies violently killed by surgical abortion. Those pictures are easy to find as well. In both cases you will see what are obviously members of the species Homo sapiens. It is obvious they are dead. It is obvious they shouldn’t have died the way they did. Again, the only difference is the age of the victims.
The idea that the babies somehow don’t count is only in the minds of those inflicted with bigotry towards the child in the womb. It is a contemporary bigotry. It is an aberration that will be dispelled as suddenly as it came upon us. Every age seems to write off some segment of the human family, and eventually society sees the horror in that and yet becomes blinded to the dignity of some other segment of the human family. At one time many were just as convinced that Blacks didn’t count as the contemporary establishment is that the child in the womb doesn’t count. It was the same with the Jews in Germany not all that long ago. Those who thought Blacks and Jews somehow didn’t count were dead wrong about that. And every bit as wrong are those who just can’t see what the problem is when they see the mangled little bodies of those killed by surgical abortion who are visibly nothing less than, albeit small, human beings.
It is not like doing such things to children never was against the law. It was, and not all that long ago. Again, the bigotry will be dispelled as quickly as it came upon us. One day in the not too distant future the average person will look at the pictures of the dismembered babies who were the victims of the bigotry of our times and wonder in amazement how we ever let such atrocities happen – and will, no doubt, at the same time be completely blind to the humanity of another group of our brothers and sisters who have become the current victims of lethal bigotry. That appears to be how it goes.
Ray Ingles wrote:
There is a big difference between an NFL football player and a midget. There is a big difference between the intellectual abilities possessed by Albert Einstein and those possessed by a Down’s Syndrome child. Differences between human beings do not mean some are without value and have no right to life. Your idea of the development of the brain being the criteria for whether or not it is OK kill people is completely arbitrary and as legitimate as the 19th century theories that claimed to provide a scientific basis for racism. The value of other human beings is intrinsic, and is in no way dependent on whether or not you think their brain has developed enough for them to have a right to life. That that is your opinion authorizes no one to kill somebody else. Civilized society, to remain civilized, has to protect human beings from the lethal theories and opinions of other human beings. That is the difference between the rule of law and rule by raw power. There will always be those who, due to bigotry, are convinced the lives of others are worthless. The truly objective, secular state is there to protect us from those people, not to sanction their bigotry.
harry wrote:
Ken wrote:
As a pro-lifer, you must have heard of the “slippery slope,” right? Have you read up on how things developed in Germany before Hitler came to power? You should. In the end there were people who worked in the Nazi concentration camps and other institutions who were routinely doing things that would have been unthinkable to the previous generation. It is evident German society had gone through a desensitization process. How can you think becoming aware of the raw horror and brutality of surgical abortion has no negative effect on people as they ponder the fact that doing that to a baby is “legal”? That it doesn’t teach a lesson – a bad one?
January 13th, 2011 | 4:13 am
I disagree with the assertion that typecasts only those on the so called “right” as those deriving pleasure from anger being stimulated and affirmed. All the calls since Saturday, for the shooting of Sarah Palin,or as Chris Matthews put it, Sarah Palin to be “erased” by those on the left show that they’re just as ready to jump on any bandwagon, that paints someone they loathe / hate as the one responsible for any action, on the part of anyone, that they consider evil or wrong. As an observer from Canada, who monitors discourse from around the world via the web, one thing stands out: the left, is far more shrill in decrying points of view they disagree with, they have no sense of humour, they are constantly trying to shut down those of dissenting opinions, thus despite all their much touted belief in freedoms of speech, press,, opinion, etc, they mean they support these freedoms for those who they agree with only. Thus the calls for a return to “Fairness Doctrine” or some facsimile thereof, and for FCC regulation of the internet because Joe Biden and his ilk, don’t like or feel comfortable with, the wide open nature of the net.As long as people continue to think only of labels like Left or Right, there’s bound to be some type of polarisation. What should be insisted on instead, by the people in regards to those who run for elected office, is an adherence to constitutional principles, and support for liberty and freedom of expression. Critical thinking needs to be taught once again in the educational system, whereby the merits and demerits, of all philosophies, points of view,or societal / political structures, and those who labour in them, are assessed in terms of furtherance of constitutional good.
January 13th, 2011 | 7:40 am
As a pro-lifer, you must have heard of the “slippery slope,” right? Have you read up on how things developed in Germany before Hitler came to power?
Harry, yes I have. I think the difference is that women aren’t aborting and fighting to keep abortion legal out of malice. Any pain to the fetus – which many people don’t even believe occurs – is regretted, not excused with “they deserve it.”
I’m pro-life but I think pro-lifers ought to be able to understand pro-choicers and vice-versa. Both sides have good ends in mind.
January 13th, 2011 | 9:00 am
TB Root – you think MLK and Bull Connor are a left-right divide? No wonder you think Limbaugh’s narrative of history is disingenuous, then. I would call him oversimplified, and not entirely fair. You I would call naively accepting of narratives and categories provided for you.
Mr. Collier – that someone has impaired abilities to take individual responsibilities in no way implies that the culture must therefore be in control of him. The idea is in fact absurd, and the reverse is true. As one’s individual responsibility ebbs, one’s ability to respond accurately to cultural norms ebbs as well. Paranoid schizophrenics are less influenced by the culture around them, not more. They are often impervious to it.
Additional: I think much of Szasz was pernicious, because he applied his ideas unflinchingly to illnesses we now know are largely biological. But he did make some excellent points about defining illness when issues of choice are involved, as with substance abuse, dysthymia, and some personality disorders.
January 13th, 2011 | 10:46 am
You missed my point, Assistant Village Idiot. I was making a joke to point out an absurdity.
Try slowing down when you read.
January 13th, 2011 | 10:04 pm
Yeah, I should do that. Sorry.
January 14th, 2011 | 9:26 am
I seem to remember (but it’s been a long time) that J.D.Salinger in Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters offered the reader a bouquet of asterisks. (This was for putting up with the book, perhaps.)
I humbly offer the following bouquet to A.V.I. for being a nice guy:
*********************************
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact