• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does harsh or "violent" political rhetoric/speech contribute to violent action?

Does harsh/violent political speech contribute to violence?

  • Total voters
    68
X Factor said:
Apdst, you know that I am not one of your automatic detractors but :doh. I'm not agreeing with everything Ikari is posting but he is posting in a less partisan way than, well, you.
Click to expand...

His comments are partisan. There isn't much I can do to change that. Just because you view someone as overall bipartisan doesn't make that person immune from posting partisan comments.
 
Ikari said:
Not nearly as much as most of you are.
Click to expand...

I don't run around denying it at every turn, neither.

But, thanks for admitting that you possess your own level of partisanship.
 
apdst said:
His comments are partisan. There isn't much I can do to change that. Just because you view someone as overall bipartisan doesn't make that person immune from posting partisan comments.
Click to expand...

Trump is the Reality TV President. That's not a partisan comment, that's how Trump is. He knows the drama and brings it to his advantage when he can.

That being said, the overtly aggressive, hostile, and hyper-partisan rhetoric that leads to the breakdown of political discourse exists fully on both sides and until the lot of us can understand that and the dangers that brings to the Republic, we're never going to solve it.

You're just highlighting my point, people have gotten so hyper-partisan and sensitive that they cannot handle political critique of difference. It's some knee-jerk reaction to blame the otherside so that one need not examine their own side.

Case-in-point...you. You'll never even consider that Trump has a part to play in any of this, that he has been severely divisive, has helped to create that attitude, and while some of his distractors go well overboard, we've never seen the levels that we've seen in Trump because no President has invited such a divisive attitude and played to it. To you it must be and can only be the Left that is at fault.

Whereas I see the whole field.
 
apdst said:
I don't run around denying it at every turn, neither.

But, thanks for admitting that you possess your own level of partisanship.
Click to expand...

I generally try to avoid statements of absolute, so I wouldn't claim to be absolutely non-partisan. Though my partisanship certainly isn't as rabid as your run-of-the-mill Republocrat nor does it tend to fall along Republocrat lines. Ergo, in this case I can see clearly how the hyperpartisanship of the Republocrats has infected the whole of the system and that neither side is innocent.
 
X Factor said:
Does harsh or "violent" political rhetoric/speech contribute to violent action?

I'm not asking if it causes it, but rather if it is a contributing factor and I've come to the conclusion that yes, it is. This is actually a change from what I previously thought and I admit that it took the Scalise shooting to make me aware of it. After the Giffords shooting I did go into knee jerk defensive mode on behalf of the TEA party even though I never considered myself a TEA party person. But now it just seems really obvious. Of course speech can incite action. Isn't it often the very purpose of political speech to get people to do something and challenge them to act by voting a certain way or donating money or volunteering, and often the way to do that is to vilify the opposition. It happens on all sides. Anti abortion groups (and I am anti abortion) refer to abortion doctors as murderers for example just as elements in Black Live Matter refer to police officers the same way so is it really surprising that there has been violence directed against abortion clinics and police officers? In the end, a person is still fully responsible for their own actions, but we have to be real about how over the top hyperbole, even hyperbole we might me sympathetic to, can contribute.

That's my case. What do you think? Poll incoming.
Click to expand...

It can, but the people who commit the acts of violence must bear the ultimate responsibility. If I were someone who was that vulnerable to being incited to violence--and I am most decisively not--then it would be my responsibility to turn off the TV, get away from political blogs and forums(!), and just get in the moment for a little while.
 
HOWEVER, there is definitely something to be said for hyperpartisan politicians. Tell me this, in the 2016 election, how many acts of violence did we see at rallies for Marco Rubio? Or John Kasich? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Bernie Sanders? (More on him in a bit.) I think Trump attracted people who felt victimized by the system, not based on careful analysis of what they already felt to be true, but by inciting the worst feelings among him.

Now...

It is no secret that some of these political acts of violence have been from fanatical leftists. I have been noticing that in recent times, political fanaticism has not been limited to the Right. The Portland light rail terrorist and the Congressional baseball game shooter, for instance, both claimed to be Bernie Sanders fans. Does this mean that every Sanders fan is a potential terrorist? Of course not. But both Sanders and Trump did dabble in openly anti-establishment, us-vs-them campaigning, and--this is going to trigger someone but I am going to say it anyway, because discomfort is not an excuse for covering up the truth--both candidates dabbled in conspiracy theories, particularly late in their campaigns. Fake news only exacerbated this problem. Hate Hillary Clinton all you want to, but for Sanders to allege that the Democratic primary was rigged despite his losing it by nearly 4 million votes screamed of petty desperation. And I know just how loud the Bernie-or-Bust voices were, because trust me, I heard them. One had to be deaf not to. So all it took was the worst of this bunch to give into their victim complex all the way, to give into their me-vs-the-world complex all the way, an an electoral loss that was just enough to give Republicans power over all of Washington.

I want to ask anyone of any political persuasion to ask themselves why this political violence is not a problem among those who supported John Kasich. Or Hillary Clinton. Or even Ted Cruz, as crazy as he is. Maybe it's because even Ted Cruz recognizes that there are limits to what you can do if you don't get your way at the ballot box? Something worth thinking about.
 
Ikari said:
I generally try to avoid statements of absolute, so I wouldn't claim to be absolutely non-partisan. Though my partisanship certainly isn't as rabid as your run-of-the-mill Republocrat nor does it tend to fall along Republocrat lines. Ergo, in this case I can see clearly how the hyperpartisanship of the Republocrats has infected the whole of the system and that neither side is innocent.
Click to expand...

That's why you and others should stop running around shaming other posters. Or, hiding your own partisanship is why you do it.

This "you're more partisan than me!" bull**** has gotten to be rediculous as hell.
 
apdst said:
That's why you and others should stop running around shaming other posters. Or, hiding your own partisanship is why you do it.

This "you're more partisan than me!" bull**** has gotten to be rediculous as hell.
Click to expand...

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

My own "partisanship" isn't the issue here. It's the hate fueled, divisive, hyper-partisanship of the Republocrats that's the fundamental here. You're just trying to deflect away because you want my statement that Trump is the Reality TV President to be "partisan", when in fact, it's not. While it is true that I do not like Trump's presidency, that dislike isn't sourced in my being a Democrat, because I'm not. It's based on him being the Reality TV President. When I say he's been the most embarrassing President in recent history, that's not a partisan statement. It may be opinion, but that opinion is based off of his actions and the decline of American prestige at his hands.

This rabid hyper-partisanship that has affected the Republocrats has caused a massive stagnation in the political process and we're starting to see the results of that. Left, right, doesn't matter. We all have a responsibility to behave better, to act better towards our fellow man. And until the point where we can realize this is a pervasive problem, that it's a problem for us all not just left or right, it won't be solved.

You are only illustrating my point.
 
When politicians, talk radio personalities, activists and so on engage in hateful and extreme rhetoric about the other side, its not just the average Joe that is hearing them. For most people they are just preaching to the choir and of course while many that hear their angry and hateful rhetoric might get angry, the vast majority are not going to get violent. The problem is that the guys that beat their wife and kids on a regular basis also hear that same hateful and extreme rhetoric, they read the extreme articles, see the same comments on social media and so on. A man that will commit violence against his own wife and children will not be to difficult to inspire to commit violence against others.
 
Ikari said:
Deflect, deflect, deflect.

My own "partisanship" isn't the issue here. It's the hate fueled, divisive, hyper-partisanship of the Republocrats that's the fundamental here. You're just trying to deflect away because you want my statement that Trump is the Reality TV President to be "partisan", when in fact, it's not. While it is true that I do not like Trump's presidency, that dislike isn't sourced in my being a Democrat, because I'm not. It's based on him being the Reality TV President. When I say he's been the most embarrassing President in recent history, that's not a partisan statement. It may be opinion, but that opinion is based off of his actions and the decline of American prestige at his hands.

This rabid hyper-partisanship that has affected the Republocrats has caused a massive stagnation in the political process and we're starting to see the results of that. Left, right, doesn't matter. We all have a responsibility to behave better, to act better towards our fellow man. And until the point where we can realize this is a pervasive problem, that it's a problem for us all not just left or right, it won't be solved.

You are only illustrating my point.
Click to expand...

You sure as hell don't mind doing it to someone else.
 
apdst said:
You sure as hell don't mind doing it to someone else.
Click to expand...

You sure as hell don't mind avoiding the issue.

And thus again, showing the problem with the rabid hyper-partisanship.
 
It all started when the first idiot went over Niagara Falls in a barrel.

Copy cats are gonna copy! :shock:
 
Ikari said:
You sure as hell don't mind avoiding the issue.

And thus again, showing the problem with the rabid hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

See what I mean? "Everyone is more partisan than meeeeeeeee!".
 
apdst said:
See what I mean? "Everyone is more partisan than meeeeeeeee!".
Click to expand...

Again, you are avoiding the issue and illustrating my point.

I have said we are all at fault and we all need to change the way we're going to engage in this system. You've been scrapping every excuse you can from the bottom of the barrel to avoid critiquing your own side. Someone else is always at fault.

So continue to prove my point. Every time you respond, you illustrate the problem.
 
X Factor said:
In a way you're right, finger pointing from the "other" side will never work but that's not just a liberal thing. The "Right" did not call for the violence to stop when the finger pointing was directed, rightly or wrongly, at the TEA party. They got defensive instead, just as those on the left will feel defensive if they're accused of being primarily to blame. If any change is actually possible, and I don't know if it is, it'll have to be because people recognize and acknowledge their own side's culpibilty.
Click to expand...

Gee, that's because the TEA party never rioted in the streets or used threats and violence to silence voices they disagreed with.
 
TheGoverness said:
Yes, it does, and I won't pretend that it doesn't. Which is why violent political rhetoric can be viewed as incitement of violence.

And I agree with you X about the hyperbolic rhetoric going around today. It's not helpful to our political discourse as a country at all.
Click to expand...

I say no it does not, and I won't pretend that it does. Nasty political rhetoric may be viewed as freedom of speech. How do parabolas fit into the rhetoric of today?

It's a part of our political discourse.
 
X Factor said:
Does harsh or "violent" political rhetoric/speech contribute to violent action?

I'm not asking if it causes it, but rather if it is a contributing factor and I've come to the conclusion that yes, it is. This is actually a change from what I previously thought and I admit that it took the Scalise shooting to make me aware of it. After the Giffords shooting I did go into knee jerk defensive mode on behalf of the TEA party even though I never considered myself a TEA party person. But now it just seems really obvious. Of course speech can incite action. Isn't it often the very purpose of political speech to get people to do something and challenge them to act by voting a certain way or donating money or volunteering, and often the way to do that is to vilify the opposition. It happens on all sides. Anti abortion groups (and I am anti abortion) refer to abortion doctors as murderers for example just as elements in Black Live Matter refer to police officers the same way so is it really surprising that there has been violence directed against abortion clinics and police officers? In the end, a person is still fully responsible for their own actions, but we have to be real about how over the top hyperbole, even hyperbole we might me sympathetic to, can contribute.

That's my case. What do you think? Poll incoming.
Click to expand...

You mean like calling people following their conscience bigots? Or calling your political adversaries déplorables?
 
X Factor said:
Does harsh or "violent" political rhetoric/speech contribute to violent action?
Click to expand...

Yes, but so does censorship.
Words are doodles on paper or sequences of sound waves. They are incapable of causing physical harm.
It is people who decide what they want, and how they choose to achieve it. Decent people will choose decent means, bad people will choose bad means, stupid people will choose stupid means, and devious people will choose devious means.
Or to quote Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal jacket. "It is not the rifle that kills, but a hard heart." Sergeant Hartman knows that you can also kill people with a shovel or your bare hands. The rifle is merely a tool.

Therefore, when one contemplates if and how to censor something, one has to weigh and measure. Short term effects. Long term effects. How to avoid inaccuracy and injustice. How to use carrot for what one wants more of, and stick for what less.
Luckily we have quite a substantial body of experience and philosophy on this problem, so I doubt we will see good-natured attempts to make any huge changes to censorship laws any time soon.
(Not that we aren't constantly subjected to bad-natured, power-grabbing attempts, but I assume that is not the OP's intent.)
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
It wasn't a conservative that shot up a ballfield full of Republican congress critters. You can't ignore that reality.
Click to expand...

Good thing for us those valiant, patriotic, well-armed conservatives are ready to bust up Hillary's child prostitution rings in every Pizza joint they can find them.
 
The best evident of hate speech leading to violence is the Black Lives Matter movement advocating killing cops.
 
HK.227 said:
Yes, but so does censorship.
Click to expand...

FYI...many countries have censorship, such as Canada, and they don't have the violence that the US has. You do know that Canada and most European countries don't have the same freedom of speech laws we have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom