The Culture Wars turn hot
So begins the Congress of Darkness.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/...pt=T1&iref=BN1
The attack is obviously politically motivated, an act of politicide.
Previous to this event, her office had been vandalized after the health care vote. Palin gave her blessing the vandalization and the GOP was mostly silent, and here's what happens.
This isn't the first time conservative psychos have attacked liberals with guns. It happened a few years ago at a church, as well.
I'm not clear on the details of this as it's happened so recently, but is it known without a doubt that it was political? My understanding is that five other people were shot as well, which makes me think it could have been random violence, a disgruntled employee of the store, someone else could have been targeted and she could have been in the wrong place. I think it's a huge possibility that it could have been political, just wondering if anything is known for sure at this point.
And yes this would not be the first political assassination in history.
But it's probably the first against a congressman on basis of a partisan vote.Originally Posted by Mariella
More than likely the shooter was tracking her. Congress persons typically don't have security.
Yeah I was thinking that she wouldn't have had security. Just out at the grocery store! Scary!
Apparently a judge was killed as well (a Bush Sr appointee).
It might be anarchists.
But I think it more likely a Tea Party aficionado because she only just barely defeated a Tea Party candidate in the general election. I imagine this guy was more than likely thinking he would "right" the people's choice by removing the opposition. An insane SLE, perhaps?
Oh, she wasn't shopping - she was at a political event, and they shot into the crowd!
If you don't even know who did it, don't even begin to go there.
Probability matters. The surrounding circumstances points towards tea party madness > anarchy. (although it seems like the two could be found in the same person).
Plus, she put out a tweet before the event. This was something of an "outreach" program by her, to get congress people out on the street more and in contact with everyday folks. Now I suspect she understands why, for better or worse, that's a bad idea.
I take issue with you saying with seemingly complete seriousness that an "insane SLE" probably did this crime, when you don't seem to know who actually did it.
You're right, I don't know. That was just a hypothesis.
But consider the guy attacked an entire group. Would that not reflect an Se calculation?
Insane = probably true
SLE = 1 in 16 chance
Considering the other official who was found at the dumps...
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Apparently this guy put up a youtube video ranting or something.
I do find it odd the increase of violence against government officials in red states...
have you seen this video from florida?
His name is Jared Lee Loughner. Based on his YouTube videos, he's a conspiracy theorist, and he's quite insane. He thinks the government is brainwashing people by "controlling grammar". His (largely incoherent) political views appear to be more in line with the Ron Paul supporting tinfoil-hat crowd than the Tea Parties. While there is some overlap between the two groups, most Tea Partiers are more Conservative than Libertarian. The Liberal equivalent of this guy would be a Dennis Kucinich supporter who thinks that the CIA assassinated Kennedy and brought down the WTC.
This thread is an excellent example of your complete incapacity for impartial reasoning. You believe things before you have evidence to support them.So begins the Congress of Darkness.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/...pt=T1&iref=BN1
The attack is obviously politically motivated, an act of politicide.
Previous to this event, her office had been vandalized after the health care vote. Palin gave her blessing the vandalization and the GOP was mostly silent, and here's what happens.
This isn't the first time conservative psychos have attacked liberals with guns. It happened a few years ago at a church, as well.
Quaero Veritas.
Isn't that the "V for Vendetta" symbol he spray-painted there?
Quaero Veritas.
Huh? o_OThis thread is an excellent example of your complete incapacity for impartial reasoning. You believe things before you have evidence to support them.
Yea it is I believe lol
A person who didn't have an ideological axe to grind would wait for more information about the killer before blaming any particular group for it.
Quaero Veritas.
I sort of agree with tcaud a slight bit though, there does seem to be an increase in violence with a sort of more republician/red/tea party/birther/economic/anti-obama sentiment.
Although I don't want to be hasty to conclusions, it could merely be the GOP playing to "rebels" since they are the minority faction out of power... you have to admit its a smart strategy for the GOP to gather support from the anti-government people, because they have been out of power for the last two years so they are in prime position to criticize the current administration.
In general it seems most of the motives for these kinds of acts are economically motivated, people feel victimized by the government for their economic problems. In Austin we had a guy fly a plane into an IRS building because of issues with the IRS taking some of his assets away.
Left and right aren't the same in America. Crazy lefties would be more likely to attack a corporation than a politician. That's just the way the left is.
An anarchist uprising was hinted at a few days ago among several posters on CNN, I thought this might be part of that maybe? Anarchists will do whatever, of course, to bring down the government. But they are anti-authority, not anti-right. (negativist =/= left wing crazy)
Libertarians are mostly confluent with the Tea Party movement in my understanding.
GOP politicians appeal to racists regularly. Just the other day a presidential candidate, Haley Barbour, was caught trying to build a bridge to southern racists. No left-wingers are racist/ethnically intolerant... it's a totally right-wing phenom in every country that is afflicted by it.
"No left-wingers"?
"Totally right-wing"?
Really?
Tolerance is a personal choice, not a party line.
Actually if you want to be technical anarchy appeals most to left wingers. Here is why, originally the term left and right wing were coined when two groups meet with a king. Everyone in support of the king sat on the right wing and everyone against the king sat on the left wing.
Left wing --> Anti-authority, against the established regime
Right wing -> Supports the established regime
That's the correct terminology
however in america the terms are used similarly to conservative and liberal.
Conservative --> Supports the status quo
Liberal --> Modify the status quo
Then there's the final layer which is political party
Republican --> Member of the republican party, shares views similar to party platform
Democrat --> Member of the democratic party, shares views similar to party platform
Most people confuse the subtlety between all three layers, or use the terms to weave propoganda, but historically and contextually those are the correct interpretations of the term.
Most of the time Republicans are correlated with Right-Wing Conservative Values
Most of the time Democrats are correlated with Left-Wing Liberal Values
Libertarians are Left-Wing Conservatives I would think, although this doesn't truely identify them the best....
I mean Libertarian itself is a pretty defining label, although there are also subfactions of these. In general a major group of libertarians that this guy probably belongs to is the group which shares the value of an extreme distrust of established governmental authority, especially with suspicions of deceptive corruption and self-serving agendas by the government against citizens. More or less an Alex Jonesian libertarian.
That is probably where this guy would be categorized, a subfaction of american libertarianism. Ron Paul himself, is a libertarian, but is far less suspicious of the government, his motive is more towards dissolve the beurocracy and federal power, not exactly the same, he'd be in a category of old southern conservatism. Someone like john stossel is also a libertarian, but believes in privatization over beurocracy, citing beurocratic inefficiency as a problem, a privatization guru libertarian (kind of like ashton).
I looked into that guy (Here's his explanation for why he did what he did). He does appear ideologically closer to the Tea Party movement than the other guy, although he never mentions the Tea Party as such. His opposition to "organized religion" would tend to make me put him more on the Libertarian side of the movement than the Conservative one, perhaps even a "pure" Libertarian.
Not even if that politician was George W. Bush?
On the Nolan chart, Libertarians are "north", and Anarchists would be the extreme northern tip of "north". There are left-leaning Libertarians (who primarily advocate Libertarian views on social issues) and right-leaning Libertarians (who primarily advocate Libertarian views on fiscal issues).
The Tea Party is composed of right-leaning Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Conservatives. The "Republican establishment" is composed of Statist-leaning Conservatives and right-leaning Statists.
No, because the Democrats have never historically supported slavery or anything. And the KKK has never supported anyone but Republicans.
[Edit: Addendum: In a general sense, I associate a high score on the "Personal Issues" scale of the Nolan chart with Ne/Si valuing, and a low score on that scale with Se/Ni valuing. Likewise, I associate a high score on the "Economic Issues" scale with Te/Fi valuing, and a low score on that scale with Ti/Fe valuing. Quadra progression on the Nolan Chart would therefore be counter-clockwise. Of course, in practice there are people of all types all over the board -- political views tend to be influenced strongly by regional and cultural factors.]
Last edited by Krig the Viking; 01-09-2011 at 01:12 AM.
Quaero Veritas.
#1: Nolan is at odds with Brian P. Mitchell. Only Mitchell and possibly one other guy ever got America's politics right. All the other models are... bogus, continuum-based where there is no such thing.
Continuum diagrams can be used to gauge support for issues over time, but they can NEVER EVER correctly model static political conditions and never, ever can they model traits.
I've always liked Walter Russel Meade's divisions, myself. But I've never heard of Brian P. Mitchell, and all I can find on Google is links to his book, not an explanation of his theory. Care to explain his views on things, instead of yelling at strangers for not knowing about an obscure author?
Quaero Veritas.
You can read the first chapter of his book on Google Books. Eight Ways to Run the Country -- look it up.
Well, I feel silly now. I only tried searching for "Brian P. Mitchell" -- but you get way more hits with "Brian Mitchell". I'll look into it. I'm always interested in new theories.
Quaero Veritas.
Google Books didn't have the important parts where he describes the basics of his theory. Does this page sum it up well in your opinion?
I'm intrigued; I've ordered the book and will read it. If nothing else, it will give me new ideas to incorporate on my long quest for an accurate means of depicting political classifications.
Quaero Veritas.
Looks like it's just a nolan chart with slightly different formulations as to what the dichotomic ends and combinatory corners represent.
Yeah, that was my impression as well. Basically replacing the "economic freedom" scale with something like "likes hierarchies" and "doesn't like hierarchies". I don't see how that correlates with "right" and "left", but I'll withhold judgement until I see how he explains it in the book.
Quaero Veritas.
Yeah, that was my impression as well. Basically replacing the "economic freedom" scale with something like "likes hierarchies" and "doesn't like hierarchies". I don't see how that correlates with "right" and "left", but I'll withhold judgement until I see how he explains it in the book.
Quaero Veritas.
Uhm, I think the correlation is the other way round, though. Economic freedom = no sanctioning of force. Authoritarianism = hierarchic society.
But then I was first thinking of the Political Compass version, which uses Authoritarianism where Nolan uses Statism.
The basic tenant of his argument is that there are motives for each kind of state, and that these motives are innate to the person. (that is, they are their "nature") So to create a governing coalition (that is, a coalition with a majority). For example, Obama has moved to include libertarian ideas in his policy since the Democratic defeat last November, starting with the tax cuts.
Back to the topic, Palin appears to be coming under fire for her contribution to the violence.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...g/#more-142431
The Tea Party is the most violent mainstream political movement since the KKK in the 1920s and 60s. At last count, something like 4 acts of violence have been committed by people who sympathize with it, all against political and government targets.
This guy was plainly schizophrenic. That's not in question. But the available literature shows that there is a strong tie between some forms of schizophrenia and negative political environments. I really do think that the rhetoric made him feel enabled and emboldened to act in this way, and that without it he would not have shot these people.
The literature shows that ESEs try to keep people from getting in a bad mood. Yet it seems like Sarah Palin tries to aim for... the reverse? She seems to specialize in getting people worked up, tries to make them intolerant and hateful.
Palin is not the only one: I think EIE Jan Brewer's discriminative governing style is to be blamed as well.
EDIT: check this out:
See, they're at it again. Trying to blame liberals for everything is what Palin and her surrogates do. It seems probable, based on my research, that such an extreme positivist mindset would also blame negativists for racism.She also noted that early reporting indicated the suspect, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was believed to hold "liberal views." Mansour added, "But that is not to say I am blaming the left either. He is clearly mentally unstable."
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-09-2011 at 11:22 PM.
Yes, because posting a map with crosshairs over the districts you want to focus on during the election is exactly the same as encouraging people to murder the politicians there, and not at all an obvious and commonly used rhetorical device:
And of course, when Obama said things like “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," that's completely different. Because Sarah Palin is the only politician ever to use battlefield imagery in the history of the world, and clearly any lunatic that resorts to violence from now until eternity was inspired by her. No need to wait until the investigation uncovers more about the killer's motivations -- it's just so obvious that we don't need any kind of facts at all.
Care to name them?
Yeah, because liberals under Bush were models of civility and peacefulness.
My theory is that whichever group is least represented in the current political ruling class will be the group that is most frustrated and angry. That's what your country was based upon -- people angry at not feeling represented in government.
So, let me get this straight -- a guy tries to kill a Democrat governor, and you immediately assume with no supporting evidence whatsoever that the Tea Parties are to blame. Then, when someone claiming to have known the guy says that he held "liberal views", rather than trying to find out what this guy's views actually were, you claim it's Sarah Palin's surrogates sneakily trying to blame liberals for everything. Is it just me, or have you abandoned logic altogether?
Quaero Veritas.
Krig I think instead of trying to "attack" me, you should ask the forum what it thinks about the situation. You're not going to change my mind, so why not try to persuade the forum as a whole to pressure me?
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-10-2011 at 04:13 AM.
Well that's precisely what he is doing: he wants you to back up your statements and, if you can't do that, then everyone reading this will find his position more trustworthy and yours less so. That's what always got me about debate: it's not about convincing the other guy, it's about convincing everyone watching the debate.
I don't think the tea party is necessary the most violent movement, that's a bit outlandish... but there are tons of right wing movements which are militant. The right wing in general has a greater reputation for militant groups.
Consider the anti-abortion domestic terrorists
and the KKK which is a right leaning conservative organization
also I understand that the battlefield imagery isn't supposed to be taken as literal and probably had no influence over the attackers convictions, but to me its a bad move. I mean, while they don't intend it literally, that doesn't mean people may not take it literally. Secondarily, what's the point in having it, why not exclude it, sure it romanticizes there political struggle a bit more... people would like to feel like soldiers fighting for a cause, but the suggestion isn't something like fighting a war to protect your national security, the suggestion is to fight people to seize political power... which is a scary thought in a post-WWII world, in my mind there is nothing romantic what-so-ever about using physical force to seize political power, last time that happened thousands of people died, and to me the poster kind of works through all that and makes a subtle immediate connection to that thought, the idea of neo-cons running amock fanatically seizing the country in a militiant coup, which is more depressing than inspiring.... I'm all for romantic notions of war.... but leave that stuff to the final battle of return of the ring or something and keep it out of politics imo unless you actually intend to militantly overtake the opposition. I don't get it, is it supposed to be cute... like we are soldiers fighting for americas future.... it doesn't seem cute, and the crosshairs is a threatening symbol. It's kind of creepy and intimidating, although its only really bad in light of the recent events, the poster doesn't actually say anything too explicit, its just the crosshairs... which I guess isn't that bad minus the current events.
Last edited by male; 01-10-2011 at 06:38 AM.
Interesting item from the Wall Street Journal:
If, as this article implies, he's been obsessed with Ms. Giffords since 2007, that puts the origins of his obsession well before the rise of the Tea Parties or Sarah Palin.After the shooting, investigators searched a safe connected to the shooting suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, and found a letter apparently sent to him by Ms. Giffords's office thanking him for previously attending a similar "Congress on your corner" event in 2007.
Much remains unknown about what motivated Mr. Loughner, who is in custody. But the initial evidence, including the constituent letter, has led law enforcement officials to think that the suspect had been thinking about the congresswoman for years, according to people familiar with the case.
There are violent crazies on both sides. Take this story, for example: http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090514
Any sufficiently large group is statistically going to include some lunatics and extremists. The real question is whether the group as a whole tends to be violent. Let me know when the Tea Parties start rioting, attacking police, and destroying property. Oh, wait, that's the left-wing anarchist types. The Tea Parties are the ones who are better known for their unusually peaceful protests where no-one is arrested, protesters bring their children along, and they even clean up their own garbage afterward.
My instinctive response upon encountering a statement I disagree with is to dispute it. I present my supporting arguments for my side, you support your supporting arguments for your side, and we try to use logic and reason to figure out who's right. In this case, you have no supporting arguments, only emotionally-motivated assumptions, so you're right, there's really not much point.
I tend to assume other people reading our discussion will use the same process I do -- read both sides and use reason and logic to figure out who's right. That's probably too generous an assumption in many cases, but to be honest my interest in what other people believe, while not non-existent, is quite limited.
Quaero Veritas.
American conservatives are slaves to authority.
American liberals are pussies, if they weren't there would be more strikes, labor movements and other actions against corporations. Even after the last financial crash, there was a surprising small amount of violence and turmoil.
Only G20/G8 protests in the US have gotten really violent recently and those were international protests. And that happened in Toronto too this June.
As far as the tea party, they're usually older and more establish with more to lose so a big part of their demographic is law abiding citizens with a deep sense of res-sentiment that builds as their social status is being made equal to people they consider their inferiors such as different minorities, gays, and other groups. What they really ask for is to take away benefits or oppress other groups they consider morally inferiors or outsiders so they don't have to pay as much taxes or something like that.
The conservative groups usually asks for the government/authority to address their goals with force. Like Arizona Immigration laws and tough on crime drug war.
Progressives asks for regulation changes and reform from the authority backed by the threat of force/economic penalty. If you don't make these changes, the only solution is to blow the stores up or strike or boycott.
I'm not going to use left wing vs right wing because these are diluted terms and not really a good distinction.
Now when anarchist groups become violent and use force, they almost always target the rich, corporations and the people they feel is keeping them down.
Now even in the reuters article, Molotov cocktails are likely to be used in material destruction rather then targeted personal attack. These aren't high precision weapons.
Anarchist groups use material, economic attacks while conservative groups use threat of force against people and bodies as a general trend because ultimately this is their main divide.
"Don't touch my stuff or I will hurt you"
"If you don't share our stuff I will take it"
As long as people can't meet in the middle about these subjective evaluations of ownership, there will be a necessary conflict.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
4w5 sp/sx