• 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!

Do political pundits cause violence?

Do you think political pundits cause violence?

  • Absolutely. They are just as guilty as the criminal.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Absolutely not. Only the criminal is at fault.

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • Other (explain, please)

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Total voters
    23

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,311
Reaction score
31,734
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Do you believe that political pundits cause violence against those they oppose?
 
Do you believe that political pundits cause violence against those they oppose?

They might incite someone to violence/illegal acts, but whether you can blame them for that is something for the Supreme Court, if anyone.
 
Define "cause".
 
Their words make people act out violently.

Are you asking is it possible for someone's word to "force" someone to act, as if they have no choice at all?
 
Actually I mean "cause", meaning it's the pundits fault when someone acts out violently.

Well, that kind of leaves us with no choice except the first choice...

If, however, you go to the incitement to violence point, it depends on your perspective.
 
Are you asking is it possible for someone's word to "force" someone to act, as if they have no choice at all?

No, no. I'm asking, essentially, if the pundit is at fault if violence occurs. I guess I should've worded it differently. I was doing a spin off of the video game thread so I used the same words.
 
No, no. I'm asking, essentially, if the pundit is at fault if violence occurs. I guess I should've worded it differently. I was doing a spin off of the video game thread so I used the same words.

OK. It depends. If the pundit calls for people to kill a political figure and then someone does, I believe they can be charged. Other than that, if it is just "aggressive" speech, then NO, each of us is responsible for how we interpret what is said and what we do with that information.
 
OK. It depends. If the pundit calls for people to kill a political figure and then someone does, I believe they can be charged. Other than that, if it is just "aggressive" speech, then NO, each of us is responsible for how we interpret what is said and what we do with that information.

I was going for just aggressive speech. Crap. I messed this poll up. Fail. :(
 
I was going for just aggressive speech. Crap. I messed this poll up. Fail. :(

I can change it and zero out the results. Tell me how you want it worded.
 
You voted: Other

While they are not responsible for violence, they certainly cause unnecessary anger through manipulation of the truth.
 
They can incite violence by actually telling their listeners to be violent.

Since that never happens, pundits cause as much violence as video games, comic books, pornography, movies, and the Beatles song "Helter Skelter": none.
 
I cannot think of a pundit that I think has "caused" violence right now. People are responsible for their own actions. In theory, sure, it could happen, but since the questions is do they, and not can they, I am going with no.
 
Pundits can help create an atmosphere of hatred that increases the outbreak of violence. However, at the end they aren't truly responsible for another's actions, especially from a legal perspective. I'd consider a few violent outbreaks from borderline crazies a fair trade for free speech any day of the week.
 
Do you believe that political pundits cause violence against those they oppose?

No. I played Grand theft Auto 3,vice city, San Andreas and GTA4. so far I have yet to steal a car,beat someone up for money,blow up something on my free time for fun, go on a mass killing spree or pick up prostitutes.
 
Of course they do, else why do you have revolutions, attacks on political and governmental infrastructure. Someone has to stir up the pot with words to make people do those things.. they do not happen by themselves. It would be like saying Hitler is not at fault for Nazi Germany.
 
Of course they do, else why do you have revolutions, attacks on political and governmental infrastructure. Someone has to stir up the pot with words to make people do those things.. they do not happen by themselves. It would be like saying Hitler is not at fault for Nazi Germany.

Good point. Every one needs a scapegoat and the Jews fit that position well with the Nazis. Thus you had Kristallnacht.
 
18 posts for this thread to go full Godwin.
 
I can change it and zero out the results. Tell me how you want it worded.

I would rather it say "If a political pundit speaks aggressively (but never mentions physical violence) against a person they disagree with and someone who listens to the pundit hurts that person, is that pundit just as guilty as the one who got physical?"

Does that make sense?
 
Actually I mean "cause", meaning it's the pundits fault when someone acts out violently.

No. Why would it ever be the pundit's fault because someone has poor judgement and/or lack of control??
 
I would rather it say "If a political pundit speaks aggressively (but never mentions physical violence) against a person they disagree with and someone who listens to the pundit hurts that person, is that pundit just as guilty as the one who got physical?"

Does that make sense?

At this point, you might want to just start a new poll thread or you will likely get minimal at best response.

How is this for wording "Are angry, aggressive political pundits responsible for politically motivated violence or threats, even if they do not advocate such acts?"
 
Do you believe that political pundits cause violence against those they oppose?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement]Incitement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
At this point, you might want to just start a new poll thread or you will likely get minimal at best response.

How is this for wording "Are angry, aggressive political pundits responsible for politically motivated violence or threats, even if they do not advocate such acts?"

That's perfect! Maybe I should do that.
 
Back
Top Bottom