Categories
reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Congresswoman shot, six others killed: The predictable outcome of violent rhetoric

>

Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head at a public appearance today. Six others were killed in the attack; one a judge, one a 9-year-old girl. Giffords is reportedly recovering after surgery to treat her wounds. The suspect is in custody; he’s apparently a conspiracy nut.

As a number of observers have already pointed out, this kind of violence is the predictable outcome of the sort of violent rhetoric we’ve been hearing for years from Republicans, Tea Partiers and others on the right. And of course there have been numerous instances of right-wing activists bringing guns to public events. As the Daily Beast notes:

At a town hall at another Safeway store in Arizona in August, Giffords called the police when an angry opponent of the legislation dropped a gun on the floor during the event. After the bill passed, Giffords was one of several Democratic members to have their office windows vandalized.

Giffords was also included on Sarah Palin’s “target map,” released in March of last year, which featured gun crosshairs superimposed over her target’s districts on a United States map. The graphic was removed from Palin’s website today. Giffords’ Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event in which he invited supporters to shoot a machine gun. “Get on target for victory,” an ad for the event read.

Blogger Echidne of the snakes observes:

The Republican right has been using explicitly violent language for more than a year, encouraging people with guns to insert themselves into politics, in the case of Sharon Angle, explicitly advocating the use of guns when politics doesn’t produce the results they want. There is nothing ambiguous about it, this is the open advocacy for assassination. This isn’t a tragedy, there is nothing mysterious or unintentional about it. This will not be the last. Sarah Palin was the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sharon Angle was a Republican candidate for the Senate, many, official Republican candidates clearly advocated the use of guns in politics during the campaign. The killing has started, the time to let them off the hook for the results of their policy just ended, people are already dying.

I think Echidne is overstating the intention of those talking about guns. But at the same time I think any politician who claims to be “surprised” that someone with a gun took their talk about guns seriously is being disingenuous at best.

But we shouldn’t just talk about the Republicans and Tea Partiers. While they may be the ones who are primarily to blame for introducing violence into mainstream political discourse,  those fringe-dwelling conspiracy-mongers who talk in similar terms, and fill their readers’ and listeners’ head with apocalyptic nonsense, may have been the primary influence in this particular case.

This is one of the reasons that I’m troubled by the violent anti-women rhetoric I sometimes see in the mansophere. For some people, it’s merely rhetoric. But the fact is that some people take this sort of rhetoric all too seriously — as those who use this rhetoric know or should know. All those who’ve engaged in it have blood on their hands.

EDITED TO ADD: Below, a graphic (now taken down) from Sarah Palin’s web site:

86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
booboonation
11 years ago

>Rebekah, I loved richard's comment because he's announcing publicly that he claims to have psychic powers. That would embarrass me to claim to know something about someone on the internet like that. Nobody is going to take him seriously at all now after that emotional tantrum and display of failed psychic powers. Good job on the self ownage, Richard. I didn't even need to respond, but I hate to see that kind of thing upset rebekah. You don't owe anyone a list of credentials. Personal attacks are the telltale sign of someone who has no argument and has failed to argue any points. 😀

DarkSideCat
11 years ago

>"To claim otherwise shows that this person has no idea about the relationship between the American people and firearms." Hahaha, that's the most hilarious statement I have seen all day. Yohan, king of ignorant statments about the US, thinks he knows more about American culture and firearms than someone born and raised in Applachia who went to universities in two different cities with high crime rates. Oh, and here's the FBI's stats on violent crime by region, note that Arizona is below the national average http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009 but, hey, who are you going to trust, a random site run by real estate agents or the FBI's crime data?

Yohan
11 years ago

>http://www.amfire.com/index.aspUSA is very well-known worldwide for its firearms industry.Of course there are no violent crimes in peaceful USA, so for what is this thread about?

richard
11 years ago

>@ rebekahrebekah said: "you know what richard I am getting sick of you."I don't care.rebekah said: "Infant feminists who do nothing my ass. Let's turn it back around on you what have you done to improve our country? I for one can say that I've done a lot to improve it. I worked with my state politicians to improve domestic violence legislation (which included a provision clearly outlining that men could be victims of domestic violence)"If it's anything like the typical feminst inspired domestic violence legislation, I find nothing helpful about it, except helping out lawyers to screw men. I know you claim that men can also be victims of DV, but I mean come on, we know what way these bills will be slanted.rebekah said: "I led the team which got my state to approve comprehensive sex ed taught in schools"So more young kids having sex and getting diseases and abortions. You consider this good?! Jesus.rebekah: "I worked on the fundraising team to get a law passed which would make it easier for custodial parents to file for child support (that includes fathers, not just mothers mind you) now who is the whiny one?"In other words, you pushed for more and more laws that will primarily harm men, and you call that helping socieity. You add that it will help men also, but clearly you don't give a shit about men. When are you going to push for laws to seriously punish false rape accusers? When are you going to push for laws to abolish alimony? When you start doing that come back and lecture me on all the good you're doing for society. Random Brother

richard
11 years ago

>@ booboonationI don't need psychic powers to figure out a dim little girl like you. Also you spew on about personal attacks being a telltale sign of someone having no argument, as if feminists never use personal attacks. I guess the next time a feminst uses a personal attack you'll be there to correct them right? That's what I thought. Little girl, please. Go back to playing with your Barbie doll collection instead of spewing your nonsensical rants here and on your worthless blog. Random Brother

rebekah
11 years ago

>@ richard First of all my state does not allow alimony payments. We are a no fault divorce state so maybe you should educate yourselfsecond the domestic violence law that I helped push through puts provisions in place that provide domestic violence shelters for men. It uses gender neutral pronouns to describe situations, which means that it HELPS men who are in that situation because it allows them to seek shelter (the law also puts a provision in place to ensure that shelters are available to male victims of domestic violence), and receive justice.third of all comprehensive sex ed does not increase STI and abortions, it decreases it. you can read about that here: ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf students who receive comprehensive sex ed start having sex at the same average age, but have fewer instances of pregnancy and STI's overall. This is proven by the teen pregnancy rates this year which are at a record low thanks to approval of comprehensive sex ed. You need to get your delusional head examined and until you do you should go crawl back under the rock in your mommies basement that you crawled out of

David Futrelle
11 years ago

>witman, that's over the line, for reasons that should be obvious to you. As are your repeated personal attacks. Cool it or I will start deleting your comments.

David Futrelle
11 years ago

>rebekah, I appreciate the substantive parts of your posts, but the personal attack at the end of your last comment is inappropriate.

rebekah
11 years ago

>I'm sorry. I was out of line. However I would like to point out that what richard is saying to both booboonation and I is also personal attacks and he has continued to do so to both of us for days now without you doing anything about it and I'm sick of itI'm also extremely insulted by the fact that he is trying to turn everything I do into bad considering that the law concerning domestic violence I worked on was in response to an MRA group who actually function under peaceful terms asking for our office to do something about it. I worked for three years on that piece of legislation and it took two years of that for any legislators to take us seriously. That piece of legislation helps the men in my state so much and to be told that it is hurting them hurts me and yes I take that personally.

David Futrelle
11 years ago

>rebekah, I should have made this clear, so I'll do it here:richard: cool it with the personal attacks or I will start deleting your posts.

Kratch
11 years ago

>"Yohan, it doesn't sound to me like david is blaming MRA's for what happened to her "David himself isn't… as you said, he's drawing a parallel (one just as easily draw with feminists as well…Erin Pizzey bomb threats for starters), but Booboo certainly did in her first post. When someone opposed that hateful rhetoric (you know, the thing david claims is rampent and dangerous in the MRA's, David enters and opposes the person opposing the rhetoric. This can only be identified with supporting the opinion, as one does not enter into a opposed conversation, deride one side of the arguement, and let stand the other, unless they, at least in some way, identify with the supported opinion. If he was truly opposed to Booboo's accusation, where the discussion began, he would have ether spoken against both viewpoints, or stayed out of the discussion… he didn't. He is just as guilty of allowing hateful speech on his blogs as the MRA's he condemns."He's drawing a parallel to the kind of rhetoric that he often sees on MRA, MRM, and MGTOW forums."But it's irresponsable to believe that this goes on in MRA's and not in Feminist sphere's, when it is documented that feminists have taken some pretty hostile actions with threats (bomb, 100 castrations and otherwise) and character attacks, ruining peoples career's for simply holding opposing viewpoints. by pointing at MRA's specifically, rather then identifying violent rhetoric in any ideological discussion, places a particular and unfair focus (no different then the unfair focus domestic violence has had on men, to the effect of abused men having virtually no recourse when they and their children are abused… regardless of how frequent or not, you want to believe it is). It is nothing more then an attempt to attack and shame men, and in particular, away from the MRA. And for what reason is there to oppose for allowing people to see an opposing viewpoint? or is there, perhaps, some merit to what is being said by the MRA?

%d bloggers like this: