Is The Current Vitriol Within The Country Responsible For The DC Shootings?

[Quetzal]

Well, that's a first...

A debate is concluded by the number of results from Google.

Gotta put this in my bag of tricks.

The conclusion is that there isn't any. No one can prove that one political ideology in our current environment produces any more or any less violence than the other. Unless there is a mystery data set that has been peer reviewed out there that we missed.

 

[suncowiam]

The conclusion is that there isn't any. No one can prove that one political ideology in our current environment produces any more or any less violence than the other. Unless there is a mystery data set that has been peer reviewed out there that we missed.

IMO, the left spews out more violent rhetoric than the right. The right spews out more bigoted rhetoric than the left.

Whether there's pure correlation from speech to action is still up for debate, hence, this thread. But I think one can assume that speech can be very powerful and can easily influence the immature and the young, those that are impressionable.

I'm on the left but I find myself arguing with many far left folks more about violence than I do with the right. Of course, I argue much more about hate and fear from the right.

 

[Quetzal]

IMO, the left spews out more violent rhetoric than the right. The right spews out more bigoted rhetoric than the left.

Whether there's pure correlation is still up for debate, hence, this thread. But I think one can assume that speech can be very powerful and can easily influence the immature and the young, those that are impressionable.

I'm on the left but I find myself arguing with many far left folks more about violence than I do with the right. Of course, I argue much more about hate and fear from the right.

Interesting perspective. Mine is a bit different but it is shaped by anecdotes at best. Who knows. Nutters be crazy.

 

[suncowiam]

Interesting perspective. Mine is a bit different but it is shaped by anecdotes at best. Who knows. Nutters be crazy.

Well, when I debate, it's all from you nut jobs here on RF.

I wouldn't have a personal life if I debated everyone I knew in real life.

 

[esmith]

Terrorism experts say Virginia shooting highlights disturbing increase in left-wing violence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's true, but it really depends on the network, right? In that case, the number of networks that have more liberal views do outnumber those who align more with conservative views. At least, at this moment.

It sometimes takes me a minute to remember that "centrist" everywhere else in the world is "left" or "liberal" in the US.

 

[Quetzal]

Terrorism experts say Virginia shooting highlights disturbing increase in left-wing violence

More divisive rhetoric does not help anyone.

 

[Stevicus]

IMO, the left spews out more violent rhetoric than the right. The right spews out more bigoted rhetoric than the left.

Whether there's pure correlation from speech to action is still up for debate, hence, this thread. But I think one can assume that speech can be very powerful and can easily influence the immature and the young, those that are impressionable.

I'm on the left but I find myself arguing with many far left folks more about violence than I do with the right. Of course, I argue much more about hate and fear from the right.

Both have their share of violent and bigoted rhetoric; the only thing that's really different are the targets they pick.

 

[metis]

So you are saying that the Dem's are not just criticizing Republican ideas but are putting forth alternatives or suggestions. Sure would like to know where you came up with that idea. I haven't heard anything constructive from the Dem's since the election.
So how about some facts to validate your opinion.

First of all, it again should be noted that you still simply cannot even admit that Trump has said many over-the-top, sarcastic, and even threatening statements.

Secondly, the Republicans control Congress and the presidency, therefore the Dems pretty much are toothless.

Thirdly, the hypocritical approach you take is reflected in that we didn't see you getting on the Republican's case for being the Party of No.

Fourthly, Hillary and Bernie hardly were silent during the campaign, so the concepts that Democrats proposed would obviously be still valid today.

Fifthly, the Democrats have made it clear on numerous occasions that they are willing to work with the Republicans on various matters since the latter is in control of agendas.

Sixth, maybe check this out: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/democrats-house-senate.html?_r=0

And seventh, it is truly pathetic that you cannot even blame Trump for what most of the rest of the world well knows, namely that he is a bully who demeans and threatens people, and this was true even before his campaign. Your refusal to admit even the obvious speaks loudly-- very loudly.

 

[idav]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

There is a criminal statute "Accessory before the fact"
"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. A accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice."

Are there those out there, in the strictest fact, that could be considered as being an accessory before the fact. I will not name names but I think you might be able to construe who I am referring to.

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

Last violence I heard about was the UPS guy in San Francisco, not terrorism, but we've heard of people going "postal" for decades. I don't normally hear people condoning violence due to political affiliation. Violent people probably come out of the woodwork once they hear people being hateful but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed have political objections.

 

[esmith]

Last violence I heard about was the UPS guy in San Francisco, not terrorism, but we've heard of people going "postal" for decades. I don't normally hear people condoning violence due to political affiliation. Violent people probably come out of the woodwork once they hear people being hateful but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed have political objections.

You haven't heard about the Alexandria VA shootings?
It was politically motivated, why else would the shooter ask if the players were Republican.

 

[Quetzal]

You haven't heard about the Alexandria VA shootings?
It was politically motivated, why else would the shooter ask if the players were Republican.

I am curious. Why is it important to you that this be a polarized political discussion instead of a tragedy that transcends political identities? Guy was a nut job, like all terrorists. He was a terrible person and he is gone now.

 

[esmith]

I am curious. Why is it important to you that this be a polarized political discussion instead of a tragedy that transcends political identities? Guy was a nut job, like all terrorists. He was a terrible person and he is gone now.

Do you still feel that way when it comes to let's say a ISIS inspired mass shooting in say San Bernardino. Would you still ask why I might think that the discussion should be about the agenda of the shooter or shooters and the possible cause of the self-radicalization was ISIS propaganda vice looking at it as a tragedy that transcends religious identities and we should forget it because the person or persons are dead. Or would you possibly think that if there are others out there that are susceptible to external triggers and that we should look into the source of the triggers and try to figure out how to combat them.

We know that the shooter in Alexandra was highly agitated about President Trump and Republicans, what we don't know is if there was a trigger that pushed him over the edge? Or do we have to have more of these type of political terrorist attacks against either political philosophy before we say that something is pushing people to commit these acts.

 

[Falvlun]

Do you still feel that way when it comes to let's say a ISIS inspired mass shooting in say San Bernardino. Would you still ask why I might think that the discussion should be about the agenda of the shooter or shooters and the possible cause of the self-radicalization was ISIS propaganda vice looking at it as a tragedy that transcends religious identities and we should forget it because the person or persons are dead. Or would you possibly think that if there are others out there that are susceptible to external triggers and that we should look into the source of the triggers and try to figure out how to combat them.

We know that the shooter in Alexandra was highly agitated about President Trump and Republicans, what we don't know is if there was a trigger that pushed him over the edge? Or do we have to have more of these type of political terrorist attacks against either political philosophy before we say that something is pushing people to commit these acts.

I think the fact that the vast majority of Trump-haters don't commit acts of violence indicates that intense disapproval of Trump (and the subsequent rhetoric) is not the defining trigger.

The Alexandria shooter had some factor different from everybody else who hates Trump. That other factor is likely some form of mental instability.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

There is a criminal statute "Accessory before the fact"
"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. A accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice."

Are there those out there, in the strictest fact, that could be considered as being an accessory before the fact. I will not name names but I think you might be able to construe who I am referring to.

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

Should we blame the Right for the stabbings that happened in Portland?

 

[esmith]

Should we blame the Right for the stabbings that happened in Portland?

Seems like the perpetrator was a mixture of White Supremacist, Bernie Supporter,(“Death to Hillary Rodham Clinton and all her supporters!!! To be carried out by Bernie Supporters who didn't turn traitor and vote Hillary....”) Police investigating MAX stabbing suspect's 'extremist ideology'

and a general nut. So who knows what triggered him.
However, if those on the Right or Left continue the vitriol who knows who is next.

 

[esmith]

I think the fact that the vast majority of Trump-haters don't commit acts of violence indicates that intense disapproval of Trump (and the subsequent rhetoric) is not the defining trigger.

The Alexandria shooter had some factor different from everybody else who hates Trump. That other factor is likely some form of mental instability.

Yes the Alexandria shooter had a factor different from everyone else who hates President Trump and Republicans......He reached the trigger point and acted whereas the rest just talk. The majority of those, not all, who commit acts like this probably do have some mental instability. However it usually takes a trigger for them to act out. The trigger can be one incident or a continual build up over time until the tipping point is reach. Who is to say what caused him to finally act vice just talk.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Seems like the perpetrator was a mixture of White Supremacist, Bernie Supporter,(“Death to Hillary Rodham Clinton and all her supporters!!! To be carried out by Bernie Supporters who didn't turn traitor and vote Hillary....”) Police investigating MAX stabbing suspect's 'extremist ideology'

and a general nut. So who knows what triggered him.
However, if those on the Right or Left continue the vitriol who knows who is next.

"Seems like "

Seems like you are making up a bunch of silly nonsense about things you know almost nothing about.

 

[Quetzal]

We know that the shooter in Alexandra was highly agitated about President Trump and Republicans, what we don't know is if there was a trigger that pushed him over the edge? Or do we have to have more of these type of political terrorist attacks against either political philosophy before we say that something is pushing people to commit these acts.

As long as you understand this pendulum swings both ways and there are many terrorist acts inspired by the right as well. It is a widespread problem that is not limited to one side.

 

[esmith]

As long as you understand this pendulum swings both ways and there are many terrorist acts inspired by the right as well. It is a widespread problem that is not limited to one side.

agree