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

[leibowde84]

Not necessarily. First who are the alt-right and alt-left (by the way I'm fairly positive you didn't proof read your post....)

I really do not believe that there are that many alt-right or alt-left so lets just look at violence of the right and left
right 212,000,000 hits
left 144,000,000 hits

but what is disturbing is a report like the following
Terrorism experts say GOP shooting highlights disturbing rise in left-wing violence

and oh by the way the Miami Herald is rated somewhat liberal but reporting factual information is hight
Miami Herald

It seems like left-wing violence hasn't quite caught up with right-wing violence. But, it is getting there thanks to the rhetoric from the White House and supporters.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Probably because a very very small percentage of people actually go beyond just "talking". We know that Hodgkinson was probably mentally unstable, but since he did not undergo evaluation we will never know for sure. We also know that he was vehemently opposed to President Trump and Republicans. We also know that there are thousand of people that have the same animosity that he had. What we don't know and never will know is what finally drove him to commit the act that he committed. Can we say that it was positively the political rhetoric that finely drove him to act? The answer is no. But we can not dismiss the possibility that the political rhetoric was a contributing factor. We do have concrete evidence that people can be "brainwashed" into committing acts that they would not normally do. For example the Manson Family, the Jones cult. So you can not rule out that Hodgkinson was influenced by political rhetoic and eventually reached his own personal conclusion that something had to be done. Why else would he do it? Well we will never know. But can we continue to ratchet up the political rhetoic without considering the consequences.

I have used as an example the audiovisual strategy of ISIS on social media that contributes to the radicalization process of a terrorist. This strategy is working. Is their audiovisual strategy the same as the political rhetoic? No, but it shows that by using audiovisual strategy that people can be influenced to commit acts of terror. So nothing says that a person who is already highly agitated about political issues can not be influenced to a point that they become "unhinged".

Fight against ISIS reveals power of social media | Brookings Institution

House Homeland Security PDF File

"Probably because a very very small percentage of people actually go beyond just 'talking'."

That is circular reasoning. A few percentage of people because of a few percentage of people? It does not explain anything and it does not make any sense.

"We know that Hodgkinson was probably mentally unstable, but since he did not undergo evaluation we will never know for sure. "

You need to do some revising before posting, as you contradict yourself in the same sentence here. I mean which is it? Do you know if he was mentally unstable or do you not know?

"But we can not dismiss the possibility that the political rhetoric was a contributing factor."

How about the possibility that the kid at Starbucks messed up his coffee order that day and it sent him into a murderous rampage? We can enumerate "possibilities" all day long, which is why we look at real evidence and apply Occam's Razor.

"So you can not rule out that Hodgkinson was influenced by political rhetoic [sic] and eventually reached his own personal conclusion that something had to be done."

We also can't rule out the possibility that aliens from another world hijacked his brain. An unfalsifiable statement does not prove anything.

Man, you really need to pick up some philosophy books and/or science books because your reasoning skills are severely lacking.

 

[metis]

I have never said that the President hasn't contributed to the vitriol. Will you admit that those on the opposite side of the political spectrum have also contributed to the vitriol, or do you blame the President for everything?

I have already done that when I said that some on both sides are to blame. OTOH, I asked you I believe three times if you would admit that Trump did it since you in the OP blamed the Dems, but you couldn't bring yourself to do that.

And here's a reminder of what you wrote in the OP: "It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner... 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?"

Notice you made not a single reference to the many over-the-top that Trump said towards others, including his demeaning of Obama by declaring he was not a citizen. Nor did you say anything about the attacks from others in the right-wing media, such as from Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and many others against Obama. IOW, your rage was nothing less that partisan bigotry in the OP.

But better late then never.

 

[esmith]

As I said the vitriol against Republicans by Democrats is on the rise. Seems that it is really getting out-of-hand with the following:
Jim Devine, Dem strategist, defends #HuntRepublicans tweets after Scalise shooting
Democratic strategist defends 'Hunt Republicans' tweets

 

[Falvlun]

This does not preclude the possibility that political vitriol can lead to more aggressive and violent actions. Again I reference the ongoing events by ISIS inspired propaganda. Do you dismiss this as one of our forum members seems to do.

I agree that vitriolic speech can lead to radicalizing people, especially with constant and consistent exposure.

I think we have seen that happen with many conservatives, and that it directly gave rise to Trump. I think Fox News, Rush, Hannity, Breitbart, etc have been radicalizing the Right with conspiracy theories, hatred, and distrust of the government and any other news sources. I believe that much of the Right's outrage directed at Obama was manufactured and unjustified. I believe that, while campaigns get nasty and mudslinging is the norm, that Trump dragged political rhetoric to new lows, with his name calling, promotion of fringe conspiracies, calls to lock up his political opponent, verifiable lies, and encouragement of violence at his rallies.

I believe that this has led to the current climate. The left's vitriol towards Trump is a direct outcome of the right's extremism and conspiracy-laden rhetoric. I think liberals have seen it work for the Right and are sick of playing nice. I also think there is a lot of justified criticism of Trump; essentially, I believe that much of the vitriol against Trump is accurate, rather than manufactured outrage over tan suits, birth certificates, and coffee salutes.

I do worry however that we will reach a boiling point. That the current political climate and rhetoric of the Right and the Left will turn physically violent. If Trump is found guilty but not impeached or removed, the Left will erupt. Likewise, I think there will be violence from the Right if he is removed.

Unlike others here, I think you make a good point bringing up ISIS propaganda. Constantly being told that a particular group is evil, and is the source of your problems, and is a danger to society can (shocker!) lead people to believe that a solution must be found. (Unfortunately, I think we are seeing just that sort of thing with radical conservatives who shoot up Muslims.) I do think the difference is that ISIS "vitriol" and propoganda explicitly endorses violence as the solution, and I don't think we've gotten there yet.

However, it is also true that the vast majority of people DO NOT RESORT TO VIOLENCE. So even though I agree that this vitriol is creating a toxic environment and that it will radicalize people, I think it is apparent that violence is not the solution most people pursue, despite the vitriol. I do not think that you have really addressed this.

Lastly, what is your solution? Are you suggesting that we should self-police? That people are responsible for toning it down? Or do you think that such speech ought to be penalized, that those spewing vitriol should be personally held responsible for any subsequent violence?

I emphatically do not think we want to go down the latter road. Who would be responsible for determining which speech is too vitriolic?

As for self-policing, I think it's a good thought, but I don't see it happening in this political climate. I think it would have to begin with our political leaders demonstrating such behavior, and I also think that we need to fix our news media somehow. And any vitriol that does explicitly endorse violence ought to be condemned.

I know this got long, but you got me thinking. I'm really curious what your end game is. if vitriol is the problem, what is your solution?

 

[idav]

As I said the vitriol against Republicans by Democrats is on the rise.

Dems are majority of voters, they probably get loud. I don't think it is different your just hearing more of it now. It was that kind of season. Just so you know Trump started it.

 

[esmith]

Dems are majority of voters, they probably get loud. I don't think it is different your just hearing more of it now. It was that kind of season. Just so you know Trump started it.

Well seems that some are going beyond getting loud but actually advocating for killing Republicans.
See post #124

 

[Falvlun]

Well seems that some are going beyond getting loud but actually advocating for killing Republicans.
See post #124

This reminds me of Palin's crosshairs. I think both instances ought to be condemned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said the vitriol against Republicans by Democrats is on the rise. Seems that it is really getting out-of-hand with the following:
Jim Devine, Dem strategist, defends #HuntRepublicans tweets after Scalise shooting
Democratic strategist defends 'Hunt Republicans' tweets

If this is the level you consider "out of hand", then I'm sure you have nothing but condemnation for the militias of Republicans that threatened violent action against the government while Clinton and Obama were in power, or the protesters who trained rifles on police at Cliven Bundy's protest, right?

 

[esmith]

If this is the level you consider "out of hand", then I'm sure you have nothing but condemnation for the militias of Republicans that threatened violent action against the government while Clinton and Obama were in power, or the protesters who trained rifles on police at Cliven Bundy's protest, right?

I condemn anyone that take the law in their own hands, in most cases.
There has been incidents that a person or person who have taken the law in their own hands that I considered justified. However, saying that it is still up to the police or the criminal justice system to decide.

 

[esmith]

If this is the level you consider "out of hand", then I'm sure you have nothing but condemnation for the militias of Republicans that threatened violent action against the government while Clinton and Obama were in power, or the protesters who trained rifles on police at Cliven Bundy's protest, right?

Will you condemn the Southern Justice League for Floyd Lee Corkins actions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Will you condemn the Southern Justice League for Floyd Lee Corkins actions?

Of course.

 

[tytlyf]

Will you condemn the Southern Justice League for Floyd Lee Corkins actions?

What is the Southern Justice League?

 

[esmith]

What is the Southern Justice League?

what do I look like, your research assistant
Google Floyd Lee Corkins

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

what do I look like, your research assistant
Google Floyd Lee Corkins

Just so we're clear: when I said "of course", I was speaking specifically about Floyd Lee Corkins's actions. I can't find anything about this "Southern Justice League" either.

 

[YmirGF]

Dems are majority of voters, they probably get loud. I don't think it is different your just hearing more of it now. It was that kind of season. Just so you know Trump started it.

I think the real problems began with the sandbagging of Senator Sanders by the DNC and then the totally unexpected loss of the election by Hillary. The forward momentum of the Sanders campaign woke a lot of people up and his betrayal (by the DNC) caused considerable seething outrage that was largely ignored by the DNC and team Hillary which effectively corked the outrage for a time. Then Trump pulled off the upset of the millennium and the cork blew off with the outrage continuing to this day. And yes, Trump himself has created a rather large part of his ongoing nightmare. It's like we've been hit with several Pandora's boxes being opened simultaneously.

As to how one goes about closing those boxes - I have no ideas...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As to how one goes about closing those boxes - I have no ideas...

In the case of Hodgkinson and other people like him - people who have a long history of violence and interactions with the police before committing a mass shooting - I know one thing that could certainly help: freely available mental health care.

 

[YmirGF]

In the case of Hodgkinson and other people like him - people who have a long history of violence and interactions with the police before committing a mass shooting - I know one thing that could certainly help: freely available mental health care.

Having dealt with people who sorely needed mental health assistance, getting the person to go or to follow the advice is the hard part. It's all very well to say "freely available mental health care" but all too many will resist the idea there is something wrong with them. I'm thinking of how effective it is to force addicts to go through rehab.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having dealt with people who sorely needed mental health assistance, getting the person to go or to follow the advice is the hard part. It's all very well to say "freely available mental health care" but all too many will resist the idea there is something wrong with them. I'm thinking of how effective it is to force addicts to go through rehab.

I agree that there are some people who will refuse help - and I don't know whether this shooter specifically would have - but some will accept the option if it's available.

 

[YmirGF]

I agree that there are some people who will refuse help - and I don't know whether this shooter specifically would have - but some will accept the option if it's available.

And I agree, but my experience is that most people will not admit that they have a problem. That's the problem.