When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[colourwheel]

 

 

Where could this person possibly have gotten the idea someone is going to come to their house and take their precious fire arms away?

 

question is still irrelevant.

 

Just out of curiosity, why was the original question irrelevant? Wouldn't you say it would be safe to assume she might not have targeted specifically people and groups surounding the gun control debate if she didn't think people would think of it as a legitimate threat?This of course is besides the fact we "now" know she was just trying to frame her husband...

Edited June 10, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Wouldn't you say it would be safe to assume she might not have targeted specifically people and groups surounding the gun control debate if she didn't think people would think of it as a legitimate threat?

 

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there about the danger posed by demonizing those who hold opposing political opinions, and persecuting them based on that perceived threat despite a lack of evidence to support it. If the FBI operated under the same prejudices that you do the investigation would have been focused finding a link to the NRA. Thankfully, professional investigators try to avoid making assumptions and focus instead on the available data.

 

Public perception of a threat does not mean that the threat is real.

[colourwheel]

 

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there about the danger posed by demonizing those who hold opposing political opinions, and persecuting them based on that perceived threat despite a lack of evidence to support it.

 

Perhaps the greater leason to be learned is no matter if you think people are free to speak their mind "speculating" if something is true or not, people need to be more cautious when driving a political message with hate and fear to avoid any demonizing of those who hold opposing political opinions so there won't be any kind of persecution to begin with...

[juderodney]

 

 

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there about the danger posed by demonizing those who hold opposing political opinions, and persecuting them based on that perceived threat despite a lack of evidence to support it.

 

Perhaps the greater leason to be learned is no matter if you think people are free to speak their mind "speculating" if something is true or not, people need to be more cautious when driving a political message with hate and fear to avoid any demonizing of those who hold opposing political opinions so there won't be any kind of persecution to begin with...

 

 

Then perhaps you should reconsider your own OP and not blame right-wing rhetoric before all the facts are in.

[Maharg67]

I have both studied such matters, intensely, at university level and have been involved in some very nasty politics involving such 'matters'.

 

Political rhetoric can not become dangerous unless there are other, pre-existing, conditions to make them so. The kind of caution people need to take is to try to understand just what 'forces are at play' and how what is said can effect the current situation. Sounds straight forward, basic, but too often people take such matters for granted, make assumptions about how much they know. From trying to be aware of what is going on, one can gain an effective kind of social political responsbility for what one says. That is instead of racing ahead to take part in a debate that never seems to get to the deeper issues, which seems to go in an endless circle while it bites its own tail.

 

To better understand how a particular individual can be so easily vilified is to try to understand how that individual fits into given political social categories, relationships etc and to realise that much of what happens has nothing to do with the actual individual being villified. Certain kinds of people are more vulnerable at certain times, in certain places, under certain conditions. Again sounds basic and probably sounds like I am lecturing people so I apologise if I unintentionally insult anybody.

 

Example: a Jewish individual was more easily vilified in Nazi Germany than in the USA during the 1930s.

 

Take more recent events in the USA, and other countries, and you might note how easier it is to villify somebody linked to an 'act of terrorism' than other kinds of acts.

 

Just a few ideas for people to have a positive look at.

[TRoaches]

Colourwheel, you have used the word "hate" to describe opposing political opinion more times in this thread than I care to count. Regardless of what you think of LaPierre he has never encouraged hatred towards anyone. If I am wrong then please cite a single example of LaPierre or any gun lobbyist or other prominent gun-rights figure encouraging hatred against any of the ricin targets.

 

If you cannot show an example of this then you are guilty, once again, of spreading one of those "false narratives" that you are so afraid of.

[colourwheel]

 

Then perhaps you should reconsider your own OP and not blame right-wing rhetoric before all the facts are in.

 

perhaps I wouldn't even have even suggested right-wing rhetoric had a part in the discussion if there wasn't strong political message in the ricin letters to begin with....

 

 

Colourwheel, you have used the word "hate" to describe opposing political opinion more times in this thread than I care to count. Regardless of what you think of LaPierre he has never encouraged hatred towards anyone. If I am wrong then please cite a single example of LaPierre or any gun lobbyist or other prominent gun-rights figure encouraging hatred against any of the ricin targets.

 

If you cannot show an example of this then you are guilty, once again, of spreading one of those "false narratives" that you are so afraid of.

 

Are you seriously kidding? Just look at the things LaPierre says about Obama alone.... Calling Obama a "big fat Liar", Claming there is some sort of "conspiracy" where as Obama going to "take" away peoples guns.... Using the Presidents "children" in ads that show off his own "hypocrisy" about Obama needing Armed guards in the 1st place, etc....

 

Alone LaPierre's 2012 CPAC speech was driven with only hate, fear, and paranoia. If you don't believe this just imagine what people would think about if Obama was saying the same sort of things about LaPierre.... I am sure concidering what people already think about Obama without LaPierre influence is enough to go with.

 

39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.

 

36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

 

31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a “Racist who hates White people” — the description once adopted by Fox News’s Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

 

A Winthrop poll from April, before the president released the detailed birth certificate, found 43 percent of S.C. Republicans and Republican leaners said the president was “probably” or “definitely” born in another country. About 45 percent said he was “definitely” or “probably” born in the United States. Now, that percentage has crept up to 53 percent.

Edited June 11, 2013 by colourwheel

[JimboUK]

Is someone calling a politician a liar something to get worked up about? that happens on a daily basis right across the world in every democracy. People should be free to believe what they want and express those beliefs, he's free to try and convince people they're wrong, if people believe he's genuine then all will be well, if they don't trust him then nothing he or anyone else says will make the slightest bit of difference.

 

Maybe Dear Leader needs to ask himself why he causes so much division? is he serving the people or just his supporters? why do so many distrust him? it's no good portraying him as some misunderstood Mother Teresa figure, there's a problem somewhere or he wouldn't invoke such hostility in such a large number of people. Political attacks need to resonate with the voters or they don't work, why are these attacks resonating with so many people?

[TRoaches]

perhaps I wouldn't even have even suggested right-wing rhetoric had a part in the discussion if there wasn't strong political message in the ricin letters to begin with....

 

Have you read the letters? Can you cite a transcript of their content that backs your claim? If not, and you are making assumptions about their content and basing your rhetoric on those assumptions, then you are again guilty of spreading the same type of false rhetoric that you claim to oppose.

 

 

Just look at the things LaPierre says about Obama alone.... Calling Obama a "big fat Liar", Claming there is some sort of "conspiracy" where as Obama going to "take" away peoples guns.... Using the Presidents "children" in ads that show off his own "hypocrisy" about Obama needing Armed guards in the 1st place, etc....

 

None of these claims or methods are invocations of hatred, and the statistics that you cite are not indications of hatred. Even if Obama IS hated by a full 50% of the public or more it would not be unusual.

[colourwheel]

 

perhaps I wouldn't even have even suggested right-wing rhetoric had a part in the discussion if there wasn't strong political message in the ricin letters to begin with....

 

Can you cite a transcript of their content that backs your claim?

 

"You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you."

 

If you are even slightly familiar with the Republican platform They've crafted a political rhetoric to take their political agenda and force-feed it to American claiming God-given rights rather than rights granted by the government. They have basically brought Religion into politics when It should be completely seperate from governing states. Last year alone The GOP's platform mentions God 12 times unlike the Democratic platform mentioning God zero times. Also it is popularly know the GOP platform is very strong in support against gun control.

 

here is a few example....

 

"...We offer our Republican vision of a free people using their God-given talents.", " ...God-given individual rights..." , "“. . .the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens. . .” , “. . .defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. . .” , “. . .We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including “Under God” in public schools. . .”

 

 

Just look at the things LaPierre says about Obama alone.... Calling Obama a "big fat Liar", Claming there is some sort of "conspiracy" where as Obama going to "take" away peoples guns.... Using the Presidents "children" in ads that show off his own "hypocrisy" about Obama needing Armed guards in the 1st place, etc....

 

None of these claims or methods are invocations of hatred, and the statistics that you cite are not indications of hatred. Even if Obama IS hated by a full 50% of the public or more it would not be unusual.

 

That is your opinion. Just watch LaPierre here...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5jAPzXJx50

 

Maybe we should ask other if they think LaPierre is spreading fear, hate, and paranoia since you feel he is not...

To anyone else beside Troaches, do you think LaPierre is spreading fear, hate , and paranoia?

Edited June 11, 2013 by colourwheel