Why Sarah Palin is Guilty!

reply to post by stonedlax

What if it was a Muslim's website with the crosshairs, and the shooting happened?

The Muslim whose site it was would indefinitely be tracked down immediately and detained and interrogated.

I agree. S&

But please, follow the back and forth between me and loam - loam's position and argument are VERY important. ...I'm trying to get him to expand and explain because I do think this is being evaluated by authorities in a much larger context where ALL our Rights and Freedoms are on the line. I KNOW there be bear traps - and any hard-line just might paint us into a corner...

reply to post by inforeal


I think just blaming others for bad, violent actions is a easy out.This guy was a nut way back when Army turned him down.This kid was raised in the progressive world and couldnt cope with the real world.Its not so easy in the real world.After kids are thought to just get buy and no one really ever looses,its a real drag to come up short in real world.
So he lashed out like in the movies he grew up believing was real,like a gangster hero.But sadly to say people have to die for this kids fit.He just wants to hit the reset button,start over,i didnt mean it.
Hope he fries or takes an IV to hell.

I think just blaming others for bad, violent actions is a easy out.This guy was a nut way back when Army turned him down.This kid was raised in the progressive world and couldnt cope with the real world.Its not so easy in the real world.After kids are thought to just get buy and no one really ever looses,its a real drag to come up short in real world.
So he lashed out like in the movies he grew up believing was real,like a gangster hero.But sadly to say people have to die for this kids fit.He just wants to hit the reset button,start over,i didnt mean it.
Hope he fries or takes an IV to hell.

Gosh a woman,who live a couple thousand miles away can be declared guilty.Simply because of some rhetorical comments in rather obscure places.That is real rich in my opinion and ripe for a mob mentality to form.

I thought for a person to be guilty would first have to be charged of a crime and then successfully prosecuted in a court of law.But I see that some people prefer to bypass the process and just scream guilty.

What I find really amazing is the over the top hate against her in running for Vice President and lost.Who does not hold ANY power of office anywhere.Not a Governor,Mayor or Representative anymore.

Why fear such a person who has no power over you at all?

The Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) behavior needs to go away.

This is a very challenging, nuanced, and sensitive dilemma to ponder, in my opinion. In my view it cannot simply be arbitrated through a context of absolutes or decided summarily as a comparative argument between right and wrong. The implications of either extreme in this case are potentially grave, in every sense of the word. In my opinion we should not be so quick to covet the role of philosophical arbiter or legal armchair scholar at this moment in history, because their task is not one that I envy. We are talking about weighing one of our most cherished freedoms - the freedom of speech - against the implications of the possible impact speech can have on others. This is not something we can decide with the wave of a hand (or the jerk of a knee) in my view.

On the one hand, setting aside my own political views (which is necessary in this case above all, because personally I ardently disagree with much of what Palin supports - just as, it should be noted, I disagree with much of what President Obama supports; this is not a left/right issue for me,) I must first and foremost express my opinion that a free society without free expression, particularly in political discourse, cannot long remain free. No matter how much one disagrees with another’s words, or the method and tact (or lack thereof) with which one feels they are delivered, the freedom to express one’s ideas, words, and feeling is - in my opinion - absolutely central to the preservation of liberty.

On the other hand however, to pretend that anything happens in a vacuum or that indirect responsibility does not exist is also, in my opinion, a recipe for irresponsibility preceeding potential disaster. Regardless of whether one feels another person should be held responsible (or, more accurately, blamed) for the actions of another person, in my opinion it is simply a facet of our nature as human beings living in a society connected by multiple streams of information, that we are at least affected by others’ words and deeds.

So what, then, shall I choose to believe or feel about this?

Do I believe that Palin or anyone else should be authoritatively prevented from expressing themselves in the manner they choose? No. I do not.

Do I believe that people like the perpetrator of this crime should be somehow screened summarily (when posting on websites like ATS for instance) for mental instability and forced to receive psychiatric evaluation or help, before ever demonstrating an intent and propensity toward violence? No. I do not.

Do I wish for and hope that politicians - in all areas of the political spectrum; left, right, top, bottom, inside and out - would exercise greater responsibility in their words? Absolutely.

Do I wish for and hope that they will also see this - unstable though I believe this individual was - and finally realize how acerbic, combative, divisive, and ultimately in my opinion dangerous the political atmosphere they have, intentionally or unintentionally contributed to, has become? Most definitely.

Do I wish for and hope that people on websites such as ATS would take greater responsibility with respect to people like the perpetrator of this crime, who may or may not have posted here, and when they feel it is prudent, prevent their establishments online from becoming incubators for the patterns of thought that - apparently - led to this tragedy? Yes. I do.

Do I believe they should be forced to do so, or that such responsibility should be institutional or mandatory? No. I do not.

In my opinion, in order for freedom to remain free, we must be on the honor system - that is to say, we must be free to make mistakes, but honorable enough to try to avoid them - and we must act responsibly. So I say, in conclusion, let us be honorable, and let us be responsible. But I do not advocate doing so being made mandatory or institutional. Which is why I say I wish and hope for better from our leaders and from ourselves - both in politics, and, frankly, online - because I do not feel it is right to force them. If we force them, they can force us. But choosing not to be honorable and responsible, clearly - in my view at least - has tragic consequences.

Just my two cents.

reply to post by AceWombat04

This is a very challenging, nuanced, and sensitive dilemma to ponder, in my opinion.

No, no it isn't. It is an excuse for talking heads to pontificate ad nauseum about their world view in relation to an incident that had nothing to do with them, you, me, or the ideologies we hang on to in the first place. This is a sick kid with problems. There's no political way to say that, and the facts REFUTE any notion that this was a coherent political action based on any coherent political agenda.

Above everything else I've learned just how selfish people are that they think their stupid political agendas are more important than the life that was shattered.

reply to post by Lunatic Pandora


I made no argument that this act was part of any coherent political ideology or agenda. I also qualified everything I said with "in my opinion," and, "in my view." If you read my post, you will (I hope) also see that I went well out of my way to try to be sensitive and tolerant to every position espoused in this thread because - again, in my opinion - ignoring either side in this case has potentially dangerous consequences, whether one feels anyone other than the perpetrator is to blame for that or not.

As always, everyone is free to disagree. Respect.

reply to post by AceWombat04


My apologies. Please don't take any of that personally.

I did not mean to cast aspersion on you only refute the "complexity" of an issue that I view to be very simple.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Malcram

 

There we go again with attenuated conclusions...

Why do you necessarily equate aggressive pursuit with violence or execution?

Its very simple. Palin equates it. She indicates Assange should be pursued in the same manner as the US pursues leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. What does the US try do to leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Kill them, generally.

So what don't you get?

Why would Palin liken him to a Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorist eader and say he should be dealt with by the US in the same manner if that wasn't EXACTLY what she meant?

Moreover, she doesn't mention Bin Laden.

Wow, you're right, she doesn't mention Bin Laden... she mentions 'leaders of Al Qaeda'. How could that possiby relate to Bin Laden? How silly of me to imagine there is a connection between Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

You seem to be desperate to shield Palin from the blatantly obvious implications of her own words, by playing dumb, and repeatedly accusing others of just trying to make political points. I think you protest rather to much, and your own unreasonable defense of Palin may be poltically motivated. As for me, I'm not American, I have no interest in US party politics, I think the Republicans and Democrats are about as bad as each other and so have no 'political point' to make.

I just think Palin is an idiot and that she should be held accountable for her ridiculous and, in this case, rather dangerous comments.

What your agenda is, I have no idea. But good luck defending that unmitigated moron.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Incredibly good, thoughful post. Thank you. S&F

Worth repeating:

...a free society without free expression, particularly in political discourse, cannot long remain free.

And you're right of course - it is nuanced, complex and what you said.

reply to post by loam


I agree these type of people scare me as well, they live in a Startrek Next Generation universe of Utopia...never going to happen (well in the next 1000 years anyway)....

They need to pull their heads out of the sand, or better yet put there heads in the sand and leave them them (not a metaphor)...oopps because I said that people will start sticking their heads in the sand...I will be blamed... arrghhh

Yes, I think she's hot.

Yes, I think she's a tool.

Yes, I think this thread is useless.

Thank You for listening.

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

You don’t see the point I am making.
IF ONE IS IN THE PUBLIC SPOTLIGHT ONE SHOULD TRY TO NEVER DO OR SAY ANYTHING THAT PEOPLE CAN VIEW AS AN EXCUSE TO HURT OTHERS.

sage advice but WTF?

what good is that? who's "view" do we take as gospel?

how effective would they be in their job and what the hell do you think they will do and say outside public eyes and ears?

reply to post by soficrow

Originally posted by soficrow
I think the Constitution is on the table for the North American Union negotiations, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Every notable event will be spun to rationalize curtailing or modifying those Rights and Freedoms in order to close the deal with Canada - from the Wikileaks' to the Palin scandals - and I don't want to add fuel to that fire. So please, DO give a heads-up if I'm stepping into any bear-traps.

Well I guess I remain confused how you would achieve this preventative course? Perhaps what follows below will clarify...

Originally posted by soficrow
* Are you saying that we are responsible and accountable for the direct results of our speech and actions, but not for the indirect impacts?

* Not clear on how you distinguish "social" and "authoritative" accountability.

Ok. Let's begin with the terms first.

When I say "social" accountability, I'm talking about the opinions and judgment of family, peers, relatives, neighbors...NOT under color of law. In other words, social judgment. It's a cultural mechanism.

When I say "authoritative" accountability, I mean enforcement under color of law. Government types-- fining you or incarcerating you or otherwise punishing you.

So, when you ask your question in a an authoritative accountability context, I do not believe the government can sufficiently define what speech or art are prohibited because of the "indirect" consequences they *might* produce. From my perspective, allowing the government to make these determinations against speech or art is as sure an invitation to tyranny as any direct one.

I'll use our board history, again as an example. I understand that you believe our posts have always been written responsibly. But you can't deny we are passionate advocates for certain issues or concerns. What if some ATS member nonetheless commits a crime and expressly attributes it to one of your threads? Do you really think you should have to defend yourself from government prosecution in this scenario? Where is the line drawn on "indirect" culpable statements or art?

Such a world does not seek to avoid tyranny. It *IS* tyranny.

Now if you are talking about social accountability, that is easy. Socialize, vote and spend with your judgments.

Are those points clearer?

reply to post by AceWombat04


Just fully read your post. We share the exact same position.



reply to post by Malcram

reply to post by inforeal


I haven't gone through the entire replies, but you are suggesting we have to stop people from saying what they want because it provokes violence?! Politicians (although Palin isn't one) do know that their words have BIG influence on people, but it is still their right to say what they feel.

reply to post by inforeal


See inforeal? This is what you get for using a word with negative connotations like "guilty". Oh God! He said Palin was guilty so that obviously means he thinks she planned this terrible plot out with Loughner! He thinks Palin had a hand in those tragic deaths! I now must make a completely illogical post that completely refutes the OP's claim without taking the time to understand what the OP meant.
Really guys? I mean, really? All the OP is saying is that it was irresponsible for Palin-sky to even insinuate that anyone she disagreed with should be killed whether or not she was serious or just being "cute". The OP DID NOT SAY THAT HE REALLY THOUGHT LOUGHNER WAS BECAUSE OF PALIN! I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. If a child in an elementary school says to a classmate, "Imma kill you," everyone flips the ^7%$ out and the kid is ARRESTED. FOR WORDS! If Palin says she's got a a political opponent in "her crosshairs" which IMPLIES shooting said person (durderdur), its ok? I mean really? Like inforeal said, she literally has the ears of millions of people and statistically there are bound to be more than a few crazy turnips in that cook-pot. She shouldn't even insinuate killing someone publically. All it takes to set someone off is one wrong word. And now the woman she "targeted" has been shot in the &^$#ing head and Palin's Crew decides to take down her little clicky allegory thingy because its NOW in bad taste? No, it was always in bad taste and just dumb.

Palin's actions are the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. She has no "right" to incite violence, which she does.

reply to post by inforeal


Then you better talk to Janet Napolitano and demand of her to stop her rantings about "rightwingers are extremists", and a whole myriad of other derogatory statements written by her... Same goes for the entire Obama administration, INCLUDING Obama...

Who knows, we could have a deranged leftwinger who follows through all the leftwing rethoric and could try to not only label all people who belong to the right as "extremists", and "possible terrorists", but they could try to imprison us for being "rightwingers" and even worse...

Oh wait a second...it is already happening....never mind...

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by loam

 

If you are in a powerful position to influence people and you abuse it with inflammatory rhetoric that can possibly influence others to do harm, then that is irresponsible. That is my point.

Democrats do this all the time and they don't seem to mind