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

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.

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 both 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...

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.

Ohohoh, a clearly awful poll option which no reasonable person would ever consider! It seems this forum still needs me around after all.

I don't believe that violent rhetoric turns non-violent people into violent people at any statistically significant rate. What I think it might do is guide violent, unstable people toward a specific target for their violent tendencies.

Political Violence was a common everyday thing through the 60's and 70's and for those other groups of people, but only now people are starting to take in personal because it's happening to people they, know, like or have common political beliefs. It's late, but it's niece to see people are starting to see the light.

Jesse Booth said:

Ohohoh, a clearly awful poll option which no reasonable person would ever consider! It seems this forum still needs me around after all.

Click to expand...

It's all good. Up until really recently that option probably would have been the most honest one for me, though I'd never actually choose it. Most of us are pretty good a pointing out extreme language from our opposition and less adept at seeing it on our own side.

Skeptic Bob said:

I don't believe that violent rhetoric turns non-violent people into violent people at any statistically significant rate. What I think it might do is guide violent, unstable people toward a specific target for their violent tendencies.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think that's also why the violence usually comes out of a small fringe of individuals.

TheGoverness said:

I agree with that. I think that's also why the violence usually comes out of a small fringe of individuals.

Click to expand...

Yes and that probably would be another thing that would benefit us to remember, that those people do not make up or represent the entire left/right/TEA party/BLM etc.

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...

Yes. I have come to realize the vast majority of the public, both in this country and abroad, are highly ignorant, uneducated, easily deluded, excitable, and full of all sorts of primitive prejudices, misunderstandings, and misconceptions. Wily and unethical politicians can easily exploit all this to stir up dangerous stampedes, all to advance some of their short term agendas. Admittedly, it's very tempting to do so. But in the long-term, the destruction such stampedes can cause are rarely constructive. If you go up to a bunch of cows and keep yelling and screaming and making loud noises, you're going to spook them and have a very dangerous, potentially highly destructive, even lethal stampede on your hands. Whether it was the recent shooter in Alexandria, or the guy who travelled rully armed to a Pizza joint in DC to supposedly break up Hillary's alleged child prostitution ring, such idiots are best left not stirred up. Politicians need to be careful when they are treading around such herds, and avoid the temptation to stir them up. It's short-sighted and dangerous.

Skeptic Bob said:

I don't believe that violent rhetoric turns non-violent people into violent people at any statistically significant rate. What I think it might do is guide violent, unstable people toward a specific target for their violent tendencies.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I agree with the gist of the OP's point, but I would stress the key word "can". It can contribute, especially as you say, to individuals who are on the edge already.

That being said, I believe the person who encourages is guilty of something, but in no way is the person who actually does the deed absolved of anything.

ETA: Don't discount the impact of "mob rule", either.

I'm not sure the rhetoric contributes as much as the condoning of the violence, which seems to be at a new high.

Political leaders IMO in the past were not so quick to find excuses for the violence to the point of stating that there would be a couple days of amnesity to allow the blowing off of some of the steam.

X Factor said:

It's all good. Up until really recently that option probably would have been the most honest one for me, though I'd never actually choose it. Most of us are pretty good a pointing out extreme language from our opposition and less adept at seeing it on our own side.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've always been a bit perturbed by the ease with which people ignore problems with those who agree with them, but that's probably what's kept humanity alive for thousands of years - putting your own little group first, and dehumanizing the "others." Kinda like how our drive to acquire sugar was useful before we started producing it on an industrial scale, and now it's one of the biggest killers in the first world; this **** ain't working anymore.

It certainly can, there is such a thing as incite to riot. It’s not universal, sometimes people spit out their vitriol and the rest of us are like “that guy is crazy”.

The problem IMO, is that we’ve really aggregated this hate, this divisive and hyperpartisan rhetoric, to obscene levels. It’s not just a few nut jobs spouting off, but all of us. And we’ve gotten to a point where we’re considering political disagreement personally as well. All this feeds the machine as it is. So where we stand, I do think the divisive, hate-filled, hyper-partisan rhetoric on both sides of the isle have really fueled our current standing. And I do think that Trump does a lot to exacerbate the problem. I’m not blaming any of the violence on him, that is on the hands of those who committed the act, but he certainly hasn’t acted in a way to help quell anything. There’s no doubt that there has been no President quite as divisive as Trump.

But there was a reason he won, and it wasn’t Russians. So if the Democrats want to learn a lesson, instead of fanning the flames of political hate, they need to really take stock about Hillary and the direction their party has gone and really get their heads out of their butts so they can make positive changes if they want to compete. But it’s easier to point the finger, which has become the standard Republocrat tactic. Always attack the other side, always blame the other side. No matter what, attack and repeat. No one ever considered that the long term effects of this is that the People buy into the rhetoric.

It’s certainly gotten out of hand, and I don’t think that there are many “innocents” in this game. The hyper-partisanship needs to end. It’s OK to politically disagree with people, but it needs to remain open so that we can have true and actual political discourse. Not crazies attacking other crazies because their crazy wasn’t the right kind of crazy.

Ikari said:

It certainly can, there is such a thing as incite to riot. It’s not universal, sometimes people spit out their vitriol and the rest of us are like “that guy is crazy”.

The problem IMO, is that we’ve really aggregated this hate, this divisive and hyperpartisan rhetoric, to obscene levels. It’s not just a few nut jobs spouting off, but all of us. And we’ve gotten to a point where we’re considering political disagreement personally as well. All this feeds the machine as it is. So where we stand, I do think the divisive, hate-filled, hyper-partisan rhetoric on both sides of the isle have really fueled our current standing. And I do think that Trump does a lot to exacerbate the problem. I’m not blaming any of the violence on him, that is on the hands of those who committed the act, but he certainly hasn’t acted in a way to help quell anything. There’s no doubt that there has been no President quite as divisive as Trump.

But there was a reason he won, and it wasn’t Russians. So if the Democrats want to learn a lesson, instead of fanning the flames of political hate, they need to really take stock about Hillary and the direction their party has gone and really get their heads out of their butts so they can make positive changes if they want to compete. But it’s easier to point the finger, which has become the standard Republocrat tactic. Always attack the other side, always blame the other side. No matter what, attack and repeat. No one ever considered that the long term effects of this is that the People buy into the rhetoric.

It’s certainly gotten out of hand, and I don’t think that there are many “innocents” in this game. The hyper-partisanship needs to end. It’s OK to politically disagree with people, but it needs to remain open so that we can have true and actual political discourse. Not crazies attacking other crazies because their crazy wasn’t the right kind of crazy.

Click to expand...

I've been saying this since the day after the election. The Dem Party has issues, and there's a reason they lost to such an obvious schmuck*, and if they're smart they'll address these issues. Unfortunately, they appear to not be smart. I can understand Hillary pointing fingers. I mean, no one wants to say, "Well, maybe I do suck.", but the party has no such excuse.

*- The Rep Party would do well to look inside, too, as to why no one was able to win in the primaries. When a schmuck is perceived as the best option, we have issues all around.

Even in this small sample size that is DP, there are threads about how much they hate the people they disagree with.

X Factor said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm going to try to actually give this topic the level of respect it deserves in order to have any hope of being a USEFUL discussion, which naturally means there's going to be a lot of nuance involved. Tucker Case and I previously had some strong disagreements on this matter, but actually dealt with the issue in an honest fashion and it made for a reasonable conversation. That's the key there too: there IS a reasonable conversation to be had, but it must be had in an actual honest environment. If the environment in which the discussion is being conducted is based upon a foundation of dishonesty or questionable motivation, then any hope for a reasonable and useful discussion evaporates.

So as to the question of whether it "contributes" to violent action? Personally, my stance is no. However, what I would suggest instead is that it contributes to an environment that encourage, supports, and attracts radicalized elements that are more prone to such things. Now, let me try and explain.

Very rarely in these instances of violence occurring do we have an individual who does not embody at least one of the following three things:

1. Significant mental issues
2. A violent and/or criminal history
3. A severe or traumatic event recently occurring in their life

In the first two instances, these are individuals where the propensity for such violence is already present; it simply is seeking out an ignition. These type of individuals, I believe, who engage in these activities are one's that I believe would simply find some other triggering mechanism at another point. The third instance, the event in question typically is the "trigger" of sorts, and it's how closely that trigger fits with the subject of the rhetoric/speech that determines it's potential impact. In these situations, I don't really see the rhetoric/speech tangibly contributing to the violence OCCURING, but rather simply contributing to perhaps the target/time/stated motivation. However, in those cases, if that rhetoric/speech wasn't there it likely would simply be replaced with something else.

Even with the above though, we go back to my other point....contributing not necessarily to the action, but to the atmosphere and the environment.

You point to two excellent ones with BLM and Anti-Abortion groups. Neither movement, in and of themselves, is founded on the notion of violence against the groups in question (cops, abortion providers). Neither one, by and large, have a DESIRE to see such violence take place. Even within the segments of the group that do use the more inflammatory or "violent" language, the overwhelming majority do so for hyperbolic and illustrative reasons rather than any true intent or purpose of encouraging or pushing for said violence.

However, when you begin to normalize extreme, violent, and harshly inflammatory language within a political issue, then you create an environment where those who are prone to radicalization, who have mental and emotional issues, or who have had traumatic things occur to them related to that matter are drawn to. And those elements, regardless of intent, are apt to take such words and ideas and statements far more literally and seriously. What's more, by normalizing such commentary, those radicalized segments of a particular movement actually begin to see themselves as more "mainstream" and the "norm", which lowers the inhibitions and fears of acting upon one's thoughts and views. If anything, it emboldens it.

Both groups are great examples for the same reason; the flippant use of the term "murder" when describing the actions they're against. The idea of vigilantism, and the pseudo belief of its justification when a "corrupt" system allows for a flagrant miscarriage of justice in an extreme fashion is long been engrained within our popular culture. When you continually depict your opposition as villains who are routinely engaging in illegal killings of people but are merely protected by a corrupt and unjust system, it creates a situations where those of a more deluded mind can view taking action as appropriate, even if that is not your intent. And thus, rather than becoming an ideological different, or a policy difference, or even simply a moral difference...it becomes a truly "good vs evil" split. This is the type of thing that fanatical groups attempting to radicalizing individuals do purposefully, but it also can happen slowly via normalization.

Now, here's where it gets tricky.

So?

So what?

Does the fact that such things can (and it is "can", not "will") create an atmosphere where an individual predisposed to potential radicalization/violence mean that it should be stopped? Legislated against? Simply fought against as a society? Condemend? How strongly should we do that? How much blame do we put on those creating such an atmosphere. Should we focus on the loudest voices, or is the reality that it is only possible due to the longevity and reach that such normalization has rather than any individual loud voice?

All tough questions, and I think it goes back to our notion of free speech. Speech has consequences, intentional and unintentional. As much as this language may create such atmosphere, the reality is there are many benign, non-violent uses for hyperbolic rhetoric. War idioms and analogies have been an integral part of American language for years. Over exaggeration of an issue can help demonstrate the severity and concern one has for it. Establishing a stark "us vs them" mentality Is the norm, and arguably essential, in any kind of contest that routinely pits two sides/teams/tribes/etc against each other. While there are undoubtedly potential pitfalls to such language, I believe it is unquestionable that the overwhelming majority of it's usage is for legitimately non-violent reasons that are reasonable and legitimate. What's more, I believe that those reasons, and the benign reactions they spur, are so much more the "norm" that it's unreasonable by and large to expect people to assume that the more violent responses are going to be fostered from such rhetoric (in most cases) as opposed to simply expecting the more benign results.

So I guess my final thoughts on this?

Could we use a softening, across the board, of our discourse as it relates to political issues in this country? Without a doubt, I think such a thing would be absolutely beneficial and even acknowledged such in my conversations with other members back in the early 10's. I don't see any issue when such a thing is strived for honestly and fully; i.e. not cherry picking instances to suit ones political agendas while continually turning blind eyes or providing justifications each time the other side points to an instance on your end. However, I think such a softening would be difficult to truly advocate for in a way that encourages, but does not necessarily seek to censor or silence those that disagree. For such to work it would require convincing through persuasion, not coercion be it governmental or social. This, given our current climate and the realities of communication tools available today, is unlikely to happen. One side is obstinate and reacts aggressively to attempts to persuade, while the other side prefers ostracizing and demonization to any sort of changing of hearts/mind.

Rather, I think that this kind of thing is simply the consequences of a society built upon a principle of free speech. As speech becomes more available, more ubiquitous, and more coalesced, I am not surprised that we perhaps see an uptick in these type of things. However, that to me is not a legitimate reason to necessarily over react to said speech, or fail to recognize the truths regarding the speech, it's intent, it's actual primary use, and the realities of the individuals it's impacting.

Skeptic Bob said:

I don't believe that violent rhetoric turns non-violent people into violent people at any statistically significant rate. What I think it might do is guide violent, unstable people toward a specific target for their violent tendencies.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Someone that is already unhinged sees extreme rhetoric as confirmation bias and starts to feel justified in their beliefs. The vast majority see it as simply partisan talking points.

Skeptic Bob said:

I don't believe that violent rhetoric turns non-violent people into violent people at any statistically significant rate. What I think it might do is guide violent, unstable people toward a specific target for their violent tendencies.

Click to expand...

Ok maybe nitpicking here a bit but, to be classed as violent do you have to have performed a violent act? Or just have the propensity to do so.

If someone hasn't done a violent act before, but then does perform one due to some rhetoric (which I suspect happens a lot) then that rhetoric has turned a non-violent person violent.

It's disingenuous to retroactively suggest 'oh well they were a violent/unstable person in the first place' after the act of violence has occurred.

Zyphlin said:

Now, here's where it gets tricky.

So?

So what?

Does the fact that such things can (and it is "can", not "will") create an atmosphere where an individual predisposed to potential radicalization/violence mean that it should be stopped? Legislated against? Simply fought against as a society? Condemend? How strongly should we do that? How much blame do we put on those creating such an atmosphere. Should we focus on the loudest voices, or is the reality that it is only possible due to the longevity and reach that such normalization has rather than any individual loud voice?

All tough questions, and I think it goes back to our notion of free speech. Speech has consequences, intentional and unintentional. As much as this language may create such atmosphere, the reality is there are many benign, non-violent uses for hyperbolic rhetoric. War idioms and analogies have been an integral part of American language for years. Over exaggeration of an issue can help demonstrate the severity and concern one has for it. Establishing a stark "us vs them" mentality Is the norm, and arguably essential, in any kind of contest that routinely pits two sides/teams/tribes/etc against each other. While there are undoubtedly potential pitfalls to such language, I believe it is unquestionable that the overwhelming majority of it's usage is for legitimately non-violent reasons that are reasonable and legitimate. What's more, I believe that those reasons, and the benign reactions they spur, are so much more the "norm" that it's unreasonable by and large to expect people to assume that the more violent responses are going to be fostered from such rhetoric (in most cases) as opposed to simply expecting the more benign results.

So I guess my final thoughts on this?

Could we use a softening, across the board, of our discourse as it relates to political issues in this country? Without a doubt, I think such a thing would be absolutely beneficial and even acknowledged such in my conversations with other members back in the early 10's. I don't see any issue when such a thing is strived for honestly and fully; i.e. not cherry picking instances to suit ones political agendas while continually turning blind eyes or providing justifications each time the other side points to an instance on your end. However, I think such a softening would be difficult to truly advocate for in a way that encourages, but does not necessarily seek to censor or silence those that disagree. For such to work it would require convincing through persuasion, not coercion be it governmental or social. This, given our current climate and the realities of communication tools available today, is unlikely to happen. One side is obstinate and reacts aggressively to attempts to persuade, while the other side prefers ostracizing and demonization to any sort of changing of hearts/mind.

Rather, I think that this kind of thing is simply the consequences of a society built upon a principle of free speech. As speech becomes more available, more ubiquitous, and more coalesced, I am not surprised that we perhaps see an uptick in these type of things. However, that to me is not a legitimate reason to necessarily over react to said speech, or fail to recognize the truths regarding the speech, it's intent, it's actual primary use, and the realities of the individuals it's impacting.

Click to expand...

Easy. How about we just don't elect people that spread such rhetoric and use such speech.

We can't/shouldn't ban such speech (as it would go against our principles) but we can use our own power of speech (voting) to suppress it.

Nilly said:

Ok maybe nitpicking here a bit but, to be classed as violent do you have to have performed a violent act? Or just have the propensity to do so.

If someone hasn't done a violent act before, but then does perform one due to some rhetoric (which I suspect happens a lot) then that rhetoric has turned a non-violent person violent.

It's disingenuous to retroactively suggest 'oh well they were a violent/unstable person in the first place' after the act of violence has occurred.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe they are predisposed. For example, if everyone, including the Dems and media, loved Trump and said nothing but nice things about the Right, I feel confident that the man who fired on to that baseball field would have resorted to violence at another time, most likely motivated by something else.

I say that because 99.9....% of the people who hear the exact same rhetoric don't resort to such actions. The variable is the killer, not the rhetoric.

There IS a difference between harsh and violent ..
Politic rhetoric can easily become harsh, particularly when dealing with ''poor'' conservatives ...
vote - other

Skeptic Bob said:

Yes, I believe they are predisposed. For example, if everyone, including the Dems and media, loved Trump and said nothing but nice things about the Right, I feel confident that the man who fired on to that baseball field would have resorted to violence at another time, most likely motivated by something else.

I say that because 99.9....% of the people who hear the exact same rhetoric don't resort to such actions. The variable is the killer, not the rhetoric.

Click to expand...

When you start to boil a pot of water, not all the water molecules have the energy to escape all at once. At first, it's a few at the surface. The further you crank up the heat and continue to heat, the more of these molecules have the energy to escape as gas. Political rhetoric is the same. Just because there are now a few nutjobs doesn't mean they are not motivated by the heated rhetoric, or that if this continues, more will not surface.

Skeptic Bob said:

I don't believe that violent rhetoric turns non-violent people into violent people at any statistically significant rate. What I think it might do is guide violent, unstable people toward a specific target for their violent tendencies.

Click to expand...

If a person is harnessing violent fantasies and not acting on them they would at that point still be a non violent person. The political rhetoric can be enough to push that person into action. However there are a lot of people who are influenced by hearing people speak and buying into it.

Skeptic Bob said:

Yes, I believe they are predisposed. For example, if everyone, including the Dems and media, loved Trump and said nothing but nice things about the Right, I feel confident that the man who fired on to that baseball field would have resorted to violence at another time, most likely motivated by something else.

I say that because 99.9....% of the people who hear the exact same rhetoric don't resort to such actions. The variable is the killer, not the rhetoric.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in his history to suggest that he would be violent that I know of. Something changed. People can become convinced of things even after a normal life. The more a person becomes obsessed with something the more irrational the behavior. Similar to cults. Would the Manson family have murdered people without him pushing them to it? Were all of Jim Jones followers already suicidal?

Political parties in the US are not much different. You have these "leaders" who are using ideology and fear to induce irrational behavior out of people. When a person is convinced that a group of people are a threat to their families, and communities they will take action to stop it. The objective in these cases is to manipulate them into being loyal followers, but when someone becomes that brainwashed their behavior changes.

And the number of 99.9 does not seem accurate. Yes this one guy opened up at a softball game and shot politician. And if you isolate to that very specific circumstance you will not find many middle aged white democrats who shot politicians at soft ball games over political beliefs. However broaden that net to just political violence and you will find a disturbing trend catching on in this country.