I just read through the "Liberals responsible for Giffords murder" and the "Sarah Palin is a terrorist organizer" threads and thought that we ought to have at least one thread on this forum that was created to put the blame for the Arizona shooting squarely where it belongs:

Jared Lee Loughner is to blame for the shootings in Arizona. No one else.

I am not inclined to debate this with anyone, and (uncharacteristically for me) am not going to provide my long-winded reasoning behind the statement. It's the truth, and is self-evident. I'm embarrassed for those who've tried to put the blame anywhere else.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

are you sure you don't wanna wait until after the investigation and the trial to make a statement?

I read them quoting your comment in the one story. Glad they quoted that one instead of some other folk's (myself included) rants. Agreed, Jared is ultimately to blame--or at least Jared with his mental conditions. Not the game. Not politicians. Not friends. Not family.

I never would have started the Sarah Palin thread if I had considered that the media would be swooping down upon our forums. There are no direct ties to Palin and Loughner and until he comes out and says "I am a loon and was influenced by X, Y and Z" we will never know what caused him to do anything (not that I think we could necessarily trust what he said). That thread is hyperbole and metaphor (which I find ironic that people denounce my metaphor as literal in support of other metaphors being non-literal... I guess it is perspective on what seems more plausible to one another) and while I do *believe* that the violent nature of the language widely used in politics *does* have a detrimental effect on the behavior some portions of the populace, I want to be clear that I think this situation underscores the need to have civil discussion in politics. I am not saying there won't and shouldn't be heated and emotional moments. I just don't think that people need to be riled up by reloading instead of retreating or punishing their enemies...

Loughner is clearly to blame here.

I'll try to tie this to another related event that was big in the news a few months ago, the suicide of a Rutgers student, Tyler Clementi, after his "sex acts" were captured by his roommate on his computer webcam and then broadcast out.

IMO the roomate should have been punished for his crime as harshly (and no more) as he would have been had Tyler merely reported the crime instead of committing suicide. The fault of taking one's own life was Tyler's alone, but that does not mean that other people were not at fault for other actions.

Similarly Jared is ultimately the only person responsible for the shootings in Tuscon. BUT others are responsible for creating such a toxic political atmosphere REGARDLESS of whether it even affected Jared. And they should have been held responsible for creating such an atmosphere on the day before the events in Tuscon as well, but sometimes it takes a tragedy to spur our country to action...

Post evidence that the 'toxic political atmosphere' had anything to do with the shooting.

It appears almost certain it did not Nukevil.

I feel comfortable making this assertion now, so yes, I am sure that I don't want to wait.


I feel a bit like a media whore asking this, but you're the second person to tell me I've been quoted. Can I ask where? I haven't seen it. :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I am so unclear why people think the fact that Loughner was not seemingly motivated by mainstream politics is a reason that we should not have more civil political discourse...

I'm not saying we shouldn't tone down the regurgitation. I'm saying that since the regurgitation had nothing to do with the shooting, to stop saying that it had responsibility in the shooting.

"Jared Lee Loughner is to blame for the shootings in Arizona," writes one member. "No one else."

Continuing, the member adds, "I am not inclined to debate this with anyone, and (uncharacteristically for me) am not going to provide my long-winded reasoning behind the statement. It's the truth, and is self-evident. I'm embarrassed for those who've tried to put the blame anywhere else."
http://kotaku.com/...ayed?skyline=true&s=i

I guess it's more a blog/media (Gawker, Gizmodo, etc part of this group).

i don't mean to pat myself on the back or anything, but some of us didn't need to be told this, foog.

Tying them together implies correlation even if that is counter to your point. You're also assuming folks agree that the state of political discourse is uncivilized. Comparatively speaking, I think our political discourse is actually more civilized then in our country's past and more civilized than many other democracy's discourse (note, not saying all here).

It's easy to say politicians say mean things and they're negative. Most people would probably agree. But the same people would also romanticize a political past that didn't exist. So it's sort of a crap shoot argument.

Woops, i meant to edit and instead clicked quote. I was only adding in examples from the political discourse past such as Bloody Kansas, Civil War, etc.

trumper when a politician is targeted it is natural to consider the current political environment and how "heated" the debate is, regardless of how influenced the shooter was by such environment. I think a call to be more civilized is always beneficial, regardless of how extreme or not the current political environment is. Never waste the possible benefits of a tragedy right?

I wish none of us needed to be told this.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I would agree that whenever a politician is targeted the media gyrates toward suggesting a hostile political-lingo environment albeit conspicously excusing their own role in it.

I wouldn't argue with more civlity in politics--I would welcome it. But I do worry that the calls are leading to implications that tie the two events together. If people fall back on an explanation of "oh if our politics were just more civil" then we run they risk that they ignore the outward mental issues exhibited that lead to events like this. Put simpler, I'm worried folks will simply scapegoat modern political rhetoric and ignore the real reasons that really don't appear tied to the rhetoric at all.

Like I keep saying:

It's not 'rhetoric'; it's 'regurgitation'...


The ancient Greeks had 'rhetoric'. All we have is crap borrowed from them and other civilizations.

I agree completely trumper=) w00tage.

I appreciate rational discourse. Thanks trumper :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

If you're speaking etymologically then regurgitation has its roots in Latin.

Of course in both cases--rhetoric and regurgitation--the actual nouns existed before they were defined ;).

isn't that something that should be handled by the leaders of whichever party? they could just start fining their players like professional sports does.

I am pretty sure opinions like mine are an appeal for reason, not a proposition to legally limit what people can say.

I feel the need to point out that Jared had meet the congress woman before. He asked her a question and she responded to him in Spanish. This anered him.

He apparently also wrote her a letter, as a responce letter was found in his safe along with evidence of his hatred for her.

This feud between the two (that the congresswoman had no idea even existed) HAD ABSOLUETLY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY "TOXIC POLITICAL TATICS"

I put it in caps so you all might understand. You are falling prey to the exact thing you are preaching against. You are watching the news and forming your opinions based on their skewed and edited facts.

Stop it. If you think polititians and the news is creating a toxic enviromant, why the he'll are you playing right into their hands?

Jared was troubled. He found a target for his anguish, and took t way too far. That is the bottom line. Palin and the "news enviroment" had nothing to do with it.

Who said that this was caused by toxic political tactics/atmosphere? I don't feel that anyone in this thread has made that claim...

There are 2 other threads that have stated those claims and countless posts backing that up.

You yourself stated palin was responsible and bldebated that fact with me for multiple posts.

I'm sorry if it wasn't this thread, each thread is not a clean slate. You do not get to swap sides and start over :)

I'm Craig Harris, a reporter with the Arizona Republic in Phoenix. I'm trying to find folks who may have known Jared or communicated with him in the past. If anyone can help me, I can be reached at ###-####. Thank you.

Then read all my posts for my full explanation and don't just cherry pick posts. I am sorry that you can understand metaphors that encourage murder but don't mean but not those that are against media figures using irresponsible language. I didn't make a single post that stated JLL was motivated by Palin or anyone else.

That being said, had I switched sides, rather than just writing more coherently, I don't see why you would be against that, since it would be akin to me agreeing with you... I don't see why people in this country as so against people being influenced by reason to have more intelligent opinions...

Mr. Harris has been contacted.

Forget that, apparently he's been contacted

Sure sure Demeter.

No wish to cripple fight you right now. I've said my peace, won't be dragged into your debates.

um, i forgot what Detmer was talking about.

slag he posted on AT too if you were removing his number

Ya know...I saw an extremely good point brought up in the Washington post today. Basically, Loughner had been a politcal wack job since long before anyone had even HEARD of Sarah Palin outside of Alaska, let alone these idiotic cross hair ideas.

Sorry Detmer, but I think you gotta come to recognize the fact that this man was no more capable of a coherent and consistent thought pattern than a gerbil. Foog is right - there is only 1 individual to blame for his actions. All other debates about mud slinging politicians are another subject.

And good god - Mr. Harris has a set of cajones on him posting his direct line on a public forum. God only knows who'd be on the other end of the phone if Slag didn't catch taht. :-O

FFS, have you read anything I have written beyond the title of that thread?

Yes. I even went back and re-read your most recent posts just to make you feel better - and despite your claims that you have gotten past the whole idea, you still seem to be quietly holding on to it....

Quotes like "I am so unclear why people think the fact that Loughner was not seemingly motivated by mainstream politics is a reason that we should not have more civil political discourse..." tell me your opinion has not changed any more than what needs to change to not be coming under heat for a completely off base assumption after new information has come out. You still seem to want to equate toxic politics (which have been going on for millenia, mind you) to nut jobs going off the deep end.

I could be wrong on that, but that's how I'm reading it.

You are, but at least I know what you're thinking now. There is no evidence that mainstream politics had any influence on him and there is no evidence that they had no effect on him. I guess that is the difference between being progressive and not... some people want to always make things better whereas others don't want to do anything until something has broken down. I think that the way politics are communicated in this country stand to be greatly improved. Again, I don't see why my words are literal but the words of the person I made a completely outlandish claim about, when taken literally, are considered at face value. I could have said "Sarah Palin caused this to happen" if I wanted to make that point and not be ludicrous about it.

[quote poster=Detmer; 6615; 112240]

Maybe because your initial post title was "Sarah Palin is a terrorist organizer"?

I hate to be nit-picky about it, but once you make a post like that, anything thereafter is going to be rather hard to take serious. It's obviously an outlandish claim, but given that it was your introduction to the argument people are going to be inclined to take it as your opinion.

I agree with you %100 that politics can be improved. But bear in mind 2 things:

1. They have been this way for millenia, and until human nature itself changes, politics will not either.

2. Knee jerk reactions to traumatic/emotional events are usually an incredibly bad thing. But at the same time, trying to redirect every potential bad thing that could happen is just as disruptive, and in some cases even more so.
I would venture a wild guess, having watched his youtube channels and checked out some of his posting, that Laughner didn't like ::anything:: that would qualify as mainstream. I would bet that right wing politics set him off just as badly as left wing politics, and that his victims in Tuscon were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time....but could have just as easily been Republic, Tea Party, or even Green Party.

Unfortunately, I don't think anything but Jared Laughner affected Jared Laughner's decision to do what he did. The guy was obviously a grade A looney tune who twisted information to be whatever he wanted it to be, and casting doubt on anyone (Palin, Republicans, Politicians, etc) or anything (Political rhetoric, dirty campaigning) for his insane decision is A. retrospective at best, and B. unfair.

Unfortunately, not every event has a tangible cause, and I think this is just one of those situations.

Thank you for clarifying your point of view for me though - I do see where you're coming from a little bit better now.

BTW - I am all for a national discussion on amending politics to be more relevant, but given how this thread started I would say this probably just isn't the place. Once that tone is set, it's hard to get away from.

I agree the tone has definitely decreased the quality of the discussion and I am definitely the one who set it. I definitely have not looked forward to arguing my point with anyone because I definitely still feel the a hang-over from the original thread permeating through it all.

In response to your points
1) I am not a political historian but I have heard several people (and I know Trumper has at least studied politics) state that political discourse is in many ways improved over the past. I think that is heartening that things have and can possibly continue to improve.

2) I agree 100% here. Even if (which I agree is absolutely not the case) Loughner were to be a follower of anyone and said he was directly influenced by the generally violent language used, it would not be right to impose legal restraints on the language used. Instead it would be a wakeup call that people need to be careful about what they say. I just think the juxtaposition of violence and politics through Loughner highlights how much we use violence in political speak and how we really can improve to a more intellectual means of getting our points across. As long as people are using words instead of sticks and stones though, it is a change that I think people *should* make, not that they have to make.

on 1 - I think it's more the regulation of political discourse improving rather than the discourse itself. It is now illegal to say, for example, that "now3p sticks babies on spikes and turns their bones into furniture" in a speech or text, whereas in the past there wasn't nearly as well defined of a legal concept surrounding things like slander/libel, and other protections of personal information.

I guess you can call this an improvement, but unfortunately the core instincts that drive people to act the way they do are essentially unchanged, so any restriction/law put in place is acting as more of a band-aid than a cauterization of the wound.


on 2 - I think our difference in opinion comes down to where we think the bulk of the responsibility lies in how messages are perceived. While I think everyone needs to be responsible for the messages they send (not just politicians), I think the recipient of that message is just as much, if not more, responsible for their interpretation of that message.

I can say Sarah Palin is a hate monger who needs to be drug into the street and beaten til she looks like that freaky faced dude from "Mask"....but it's up to you whether you chose to accept/agree with/entertain that message and/or act on it - Although I'll obviously do my best to convince you I'm right, ultimately it's your ability to apply logic and ethics to an issue which determines whether it spreads or not.

If someone is actually dumb enough to believe that Obama is a secret Kenyan, I think it's their own fault for not understanding just how ridiculous the idea is. Even the politicians who spew that stuff don't believe it. If you're naive enough to think that you can walk into a hospital and be sentenced to die by a panel of bureaucrats, it's you that's dropped the ball, not the person who's using that argument to dissuade you to buy the message they're selling. If you actually believe that a $10 bluetooth cell phone amplifier is going to work well, you deserve to be separated from your money - but you can't really fault the company for being able to sell them.

In all of these situations, if people would just bother to take the whopping 5 minutes it would take to inform themselves on the issue, and stop absorbing information without question or context, %90 of these problems would disappear and the other %10 would be prosecutable.



Besides - I can muddle my way through trying to come off as intelligent....but trolling is WAAAY more fun! :-P

I agree that there is absolutely the need for personal responsibility. If people took 5 minutes to think about and investigate things they heard this world would be so astoundingly different I can't even begin to comprehend it...

I actually got to see it happen in scaled down version. It was quite amazing actually...

I was doing some work in some courts overseas, and was part of a project that implemented completely new procedures both judicially, and administratively in an eastern European country. Most of which were designed to enhance the amount of information collected and present it to the appropriate parties.

A few examples of instant changes that happened once the court's administrative staffs realized that they had been making uninformed decisions based on inaccurate, incomplete, or just missing information for decades:

- In one court, they cut their annual filing budget for file folders by nearly 300,000 pounds. This may not sound huge, until you take into consideration that the court's entire annual operating budget was only 1.3million euros per year.

- Backlogged cases waiting to be heard were cut from 3.9 million in 2002 to 800,000 in 2005.

- Disputes over jurisdiction that cost the court system 3.5 million euros to resolve in 2001 were cut to just 300,000 euros in 2004.

All because we gave them documented, verifiable, researchable information.

The interesting thing to me though, was that the majority of the court employees we dealt with (literally %60 or %70) fought the change tooth and nail....right up until they actually used it the first time. No amount of talking about how much easier their jobs would be, and how much more professional the justice system would be could get them to change their minds.

*mind boggled*

that guy was pretty fluffed up..

out of curiosity, what was the exact crime committed by the roommate?

oh yeah. It is hard to actually understand what the fluff he is saying.

Voyeurism. Maybe more since there was distribution.

read a few more of his posts.. seriously.. this guy was tapped lol

from Wiki Eric, not sure what you are getting at? :

On September 28, 2010, the Middlesex County prosecutor's office stated that Ravi and Wei had been charged with invasion of privacy and transmitting a sexual encounter on the internet in Piscataway committed on September 19. Ravi was also charged on the same counts committed on September 21.[10]

It is a fourth degree crime in New Jersey to collect or view images depicting nudity or sexual contact involving another individual without that person’s consent; it is a third degree crime to transmit or distribute such images. The penalty for conviction of a third degree offense can include a prison term of up to five years.[10] Recording a student on Rutgers campus property without their knowledge is a violation of the school's student code of conduct, and Ravi and Wei face the possibility of expulsion.[18]

meh, it comes under "don't judge a book by it's cover".