When someone who habitually drinks to excess vomits from the flu, it's not an indication he threw up from drinking too much. Though it would likely be beneficial for him to curtail his imbibing, it's not a good time to make that point.
Telling him then anyway, and expecting a favorable response, is like using the Tucson tragedy as an excuse to scold right-wingers, and expecting them to see the light.
Just as we know various catalysts can induce and intensify nausea, we know there are various factors that could predictably or unpredictably exacerbate mental illness. Unlike some known contributors, the rhetoric of right-wing pundits and politicians has never been documented as a cause of violent behavior. Therefore, one who alleges that Sarah Palin and her ilk provoked the Tucson tragedy, must -- to be convincing -- come up with some supporting evidence.
The failure to cite such evidence is the failure to distinguish between potential and actual consequences.
Some who had already been insisting right-wing rhetoric is dangerous, mistakenly believe their argument was enhanced by the shooting in Tucson. But the only thing that was enhanced is the public's receptivity to the argument. Although right-wing rhetoric is indeed condemnable when it's reckless, none of it has any apparent connection to Jared Lee Loughner's behavior.
Even if evidence later surfaces that Loughner snapped as a result of something a conservative commentator said, it will not excuse Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for having announced that conclusion prematurely. Although it's refreshing to hear a thoughtful and compassionate lawman promote something other than the death penalty or building more jails, Dupnik is starting to remind me of Rudy Giuliani. Who can forget how "America's Mayor" provided us with more comfort than we actually needed when he gave countless interviews for months after 9/11? It almost seemed as if Giuliani were doing it more for himself than us. It couldn't be!
It's ironic the ubiquitous sheriff from Arizona complained it's "irresponsible" for Rush Limbaugh to dispense "partial... sometimes wrong information," given that Dupnik himself could be similarly admonished for having repeatedly and baselessly suggested Loughner was influenced by conservative trash talk. Moreover, how many critiques of the media do we need from a cop? As it's not part of his job description to speculate, philosophize or share pet peeves, Dupnik should probably save his musings for a book.
Those who would censor obnoxious commentary, are blinded by good intentions. Speech restrictions are no less oppressive when imposed to promote civility. It's just one form of bullying used to combat another.
If there were real evidence that right-wing hyperbole incites violence, the worrywarts wouldn't be relying so heavily on a fantasy about Jared Lee Loughner.
This article is also posted at CitizenJeff.com.
Watch Diane Sawyer somehow coax Sheriff Dupnik out of his shell:
Follow Jeff Norman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizenjeff
Parents are not the parents of other people's children, nor do they have a "parenting role" in adult society except as applied to their own children.
.
How convenient to say he has no right to speak, and say things that we don't like to hear. How much better if he let us trash talk as much as we like.
The real issue is that Sarah Palin has no position if she agrees not to trash talk. Think about it. If Palin promises to be civil, what will she say when she opens her mouth?
Advocated for it.
Give legitimacy to it.
Push for it.
The only people with the authority to do it are all ready spineless wh0res to the NRA and aren't about to get off their backs long enough to do anything about it.
I tend to be one of those folks bothered by incivility..... but you are right, insistence on civil discourse is a different kind of oppression.
Last week, by monday night, I found myself in tears, frustrated, just wishing everyone would "shut up!", including the Sheriff, whom we turn to for facts and instead was offering up opinions, which were further inciting heated, if not explosive rhetoric. Ugh.
But of course, my wishes could be interpreted as an infringment on our "Freedom of Speech", which by design give us the freedom to express just how jerky, ignorant or wing-nutty we are... to anyone who will listen.
So there we are, in a firestorm of rhetoric.... with bullies asserting.... trying to get their way.
And yet its this same freedom that allows us to finally get to the place where we can declare our own place.
My own path has challenged me to confront this question: how do we properly handle a bully?
I have been unwilling to become a bully, in order to "defeat" the bullies.
But then I find this simple declaration: I will not be bullied! (I say to myself and to others).
And then I learn that that is really all it takes.
And then I am grateful, for this precious Freedom of Speech.... and see its importance in new light.
Unfortunately .........If there were real evidence that right-wing hyperbole incites violence.......... there would still be someone citing 1st amendment rights......... to ensure its continuance.
Seems to me rights can be used to do wrongs.
But well-presented evidence would probably be persuasive without infringing on free speech.
"How someone with mental illness perceives politics or anything else should be treated separately from their inclination toward violence," Jeffrey Swanson, a professor at Duke University who studies violent behavior and schizophrenia, told AOL News in a phone interview today.
"The large majority of people with serious illness just don't engage in violent behavior," he said. "Different things have to come together for something like this to happen."
Morse agreed. And he said divisive political discourse alone -- whether in the form of a provocative map like the one Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook wall last year or something very different -- isn't likely to incite a violent rampage in someone suffering from psychological problems.
"You'd find a zillion people out there with similar risk factors who would never become violent," he said."
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/11/can-political-rhetoric-drive-a-mentally-ill-person-to-violence/
I think the emotionalists have done a lousy job of linking right-wing rhetoric to any specific incidents, and I believe it’s counterproductive to insist links exist where none are evident.
Bernard Harcourt has a thoughtful post at Balkinization in which he discusses mental illness and guns:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/01/tucson-arizona-shooting-2011.html
Jim Adkisson killed 2 people and cited Bernie Goldberg's right wing smear book as the reason.
Richard Poplawski killed 3 policeman citing the Obama Gun Ban that never happened but was pumped up on various right wing media.
On WWJB radio in Florida the DJ tells caller who mentions ammo, Obama and targets, to save his ammo for the administration.
Andrew Brietbart called for capitol punishment for Dr.Hansen a researcher on climate studies with NASA.
Eric Ericson (CNN) said on the radio he would use a shotgun on a census worker if they came to arrest him (they can't)
WFTL radio host in Florida says if ballot don't work bullets will.
On his radio show Beck says if the government comes for his children over vaccines, they will meet Mr Smith and Mr Wesson.
Want some more? You have the advantage of your posts always getting through. I do not.
John
The Harcourt piece is thought provoking, and inspires me to learn more. Thanks for posting the link.
It's not only speech you disagree with that will be limited. No true liberal or civil libertarian would even entertain the idea of such a blatant violation of our most important constitutional right.