This is Riley's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Riley's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
JP: "violence accounts for <1% of even the worst politicians speech whereas violence accounts for >50% of all video games and many movies." ---------------- There's a distinction that needs to be made between the effect of being *exposed* to violent pictures/stories/language and being *incited to anger* by someone using stories that, when taken to a logical conclusion, can be used to justify violent action. With regard to the impact of being exposed to violence, statistics show that violent crimes among juveniles have been on the decline even as games have increased both in their prevalence and their degree of being graphic. Similarly, studies have found a decrease in rates of rape that coincides with increased availability of pornography. The problem with people like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Bill O'reilly, Ann Coulter, etc, etc, is that they contribute to a culture of hate that leads people to believe that violence is justified (for example: proud to be an American + owe a debt to the people who died to give you your freedom + your freedoms are being stolen + your grandma is going to be killed + the president is a fraud who pals around with terrorists = violence is justified).
1 reply
Brendon, Granting that there is no evidence to support the claim that "rhetoric caused Saturday's events", what does this statement of truth have to do with Paul Krugman's article, "Climate of Hate"? Krugman is not claiming a singular cause and effect connection between any one person's rhetoric and the shooting. He's claiming that the climate increases the odds that a shooting like this is likely to happen and specifically, that it would be a mistake to consider the shooting of Congressman Giffords as an isolated event. Maybe he's wrong, buy far from being "evidence-free", he provides a decent amount of evidence to support the claim as a reasonable topic of debate. Aren't you guilty yourself of guilt-by-association when you lump the arguments made by Krugman in his article with Markos Moulitsas and Brad DeLong? Moreover, should I assume it was an accident, not a tactic on your part, to shift from the topic of Krugman's article to the specific statements made by Moulitsas and DeLong which are not compatible with the content and arguments made by Krugman in his article ? I assume it was an accident on your part because I have no evidence that these associations were intentional. What evidence do you have to support your claim that the National Jewish Democratic Council is striving to apply guilt-by-association as a tactic?
1 reply