I'm saying extremist rhetoric where violence is advocated as a solution to political problems whether it's because of a school board or anything else is not acceptable. I think that extremist rhetoric in politics is different than video games or hip hop or anything else. I think one video games is pure fantasy, and the other a form of art. Extremist rhetoric in the form of politics isn't either of those. I've never said that extremist rhetoric leads to assassinations or whatever you claim I'm saying. I will say that I don't support extremist rhetoric from radical clerics in Islam, in those that preach death to abortion doctors or those that say if we loose an election we should take up arms and alter the result. It's not American, it's not patriotic and it isn't healthy no matter how much I would support the same political causes. Quite frankly I'm surprised that you believe that kind of rhetoric is healthy or worth defending. I guess we'll just agree to disagree. It's odd because I guess my politics are generally pretty radical. But no matter how radical they are, the idea of leaders advocating violence as a solution to political problems is still way out of bounds for me. I'll try and accept that you feel differently about that issue.
Two points: I definitely don't support political rhetoric where violence is advocated as a means to political ends. That can be incitement of violence, and is wrong and illegal. But that hasn't been talked about here at all, and, as far as I know, doesn't exist in the American political climate. The metaphorical violence that you and I have been discussing is something completely different. It's a rhetorical tool. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a huge difference between saying that we should "lock and load" to prepare for election seasons, and saying that political solutions have failed, and you should bomb a federal building. One is a rhetorical tool, the other is a call to action. It's how the law looks at it, and it's reasonable. Secondly, if you're saying that that extremist political rhetoric undermines peoples points and marginalizes their views, I tend to agree. But there's not that much extremist political rhetoric in this country right now, compared to our own history and other free countries. The French riot and destroy buildings over a reduction in rent control. We don't have anything like that.
I agree with you on all of this but one point. Yes, the metaphors are just that and nothing more than rhetorical tools. But in some cases, it does go beyond that and BOTH sides are guilty of it. And I am talking about painting the other side not as merely disagreeing, but as morally corrupt and trying to intentionally do harm to you. That's not something I've seen before and I think can influence people to do some dangerous things. It's not the words one uses, it's the art of persuasion one practices. And I agree that Palin and most others have decent intentions. The one that stands out to me is Beck. He's not having a political discourse, he's demonizing liberals into some sort of evil conspiracy and that to me is really sketchy area that goes far beyond "rhetorical tools". Trying to convince people that Pelosi and Obama have the same designs as Hitler and Stalin ain't just rhetoric man.
On the first point. I believe that when Kaufman who was picked to be a campaign manager but didn't end up taking the job says, "If ballots don't work, bullets will" that is advocating violence as an answer to political problems. I believe the same is true about Sharon Angle talking about 2nd amendment remedies to elections that don't go the way she would like. Those are the kinds of statements that I think are most harmful to our political process. I do agree that metaphors that use violent imagery aren't the same. But both Kaufman and Angle were talking about literal solutions involving guns to political problems.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8aclMOaRQcM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8aclMOaRQcM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Well, here's a good measuring stick: when Malcom X said it first, did anyone really think he was speaking in metaphor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet Of course he wasn't. He was advocating violence as a political alternative. And he caught (and still catches) a lot of flak for it. How is Kaufman's statement any different? (hint: It isn't). This one is completely blatant. I don't see how invoking this text can be interpreted as anything other than a call to those who feel the election didn't go their way to take up arms against their political opposition. Agreed. Metaphors are not the same, but when utilized (by either side), they add fuel to an already out-of-control fire. BOTH SIDES need to cut it out.
Coming late to this thread but Jeff I understand your frustration and I was tempted myself to put a poster on ignore and report a poster, something that I have never done and hope not to do. This forum has been bad recently but I still don't think this forum should be shut down. There is tons of garbage here but here and there are some great posts and some very intelligent and informed debate. These issues are important issues that by their very nature will become heated. They are also issues that are with us constantly and much more relevant than talking about who Shakira is dating. While exasperating at times I think it is important that we discuss these issues than just say we aren't and we are going to shut down the venue to do so. By doing so you will find that these discussions will just spill into the other forums and instead of confining them to D & D you and the rest of Clutch crew will be rooting them out everywhere else. This site is at its heart a basketball site and politics is an afterthought but because of the worldwide appeal of the Rockets and the diversity of Houston there is a very unique diversity to Clutchfans. I am not afraid to admit it but I have learned a lot from Clutchfans Debate and Discussion on a variety of things and am often surprised by the knowledge base that various posters bring. I think limiting our what is talked about on Clutchfans to just basketball, other sports and big ass gorditos may make lesson the vitriol but at the same time may make the overall intellectual discussion poorer. One more thing to consider about D & D. While it is full of a lot of as you say "sound and fury signifying nothing." I can attest personally that actually tangible good has come from this site. I got to know Rhester largely from D & D and from that we put together a project to get architecture students from Minnesota to come and repair houses on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Ike. Rhester is a self admitted Jesus Freak Ron Paulite and I am someone who believes the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism saved my life and once worked for the government, we have very different views on all sorts of things have debated each other over such things but without D & D we likely never would've known each other to be able to cooperate on that project. If we hadn't hadn't debated about religion and other topics but just sports I would never know about Rhester's church and he would've never know about my involvement with the U of MN architecture school. To sum up I won't deny that this forum has a lot of poo flinging and neanderthal like behavior. I recognize this is Clutch's cyber territory and you and the rest of Clutch Crew patrol it. I think though there is a need for this forum, if just to keep these topics out of other forums, but also that there is a value to these discussions.
The Buddha said, "In this world Hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate," and I'm feeling WAY to hateful about my wasted time in here. I am blocking the D&D from my view and I plan on never returning. Enjoy running the asylum, inmates.
as Devadip Carlos Santana said the other night, "here is my message for Brother Barack Obama: War is not the answer, only love can conquer hate" right on. Spoiler <object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y9KC7uhMY9s?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y9KC7uhMY9s?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
You are getting cockpunched brah. You don't know where, you don't know when, but when it happens you will think, "yeah, I deserved that". Seiously, there is nothing real in the D&D. It's all of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Just virtual blowhards exercising their ego and debate skills. You never even know if that rediculous dumbass is actually just trolling his own real mindset to get you to support it. The playground doesn't need a monitor if no really gets hurt.
Wow. This place will become even less readable, but at least it's open. Sorry to hear that, Jeff. I guess there's only one way to roll now, in the asylum:
D&D is fully unmoderated now? TIME TO GET THIS PARTY STARTED <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TQOg2HaB1Xc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TQOg2HaB1Xc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Sort of agree with that but when you have someone like SamFisher doing research to try figure out the true identity of a poster, that is way over the line because he is trying to make things real. To even imply that he was going to try to find out who a poster is goes over the line as well. Dude shoulda been banned right then and there but nothing happened. That's a good example of an inmate running the asylum.
