Ain't No Time for Hate

[JMohegan]

This confuses me. The conservative folks that have posted here haven't been pumping their fists at Savage's name. There's been more instances of "wow, nutty" than fist pumping. Are we seeing posts from the everyday person on the left here but only posts from special-case people on the right?

"Conservatives are all small-minded bigots. Well, except for you guys. You're okay."

Earlier on the thread, I posted my definition of a conservative.

"To me, conservative = someone who advocates fiscal restraint, keeping the government out of peoples' way at home, and speaking softly and carrying a big stick in the world at large."

There is nothing intrinsically small-minded or bigoted about conservatives, though some surely are. (Just as some liberals are small-minded or bigoted.)

A few posts up, I wrote: "The problem we have is that true conservatives have been outshouted, outnumbered, and overrun by hate-mongering, fear-mongering culture warriors and those who exploit them. Together, these people exert their combined commercial and political power in ways that are both damaging to this country as a whole, and directly, personally threatening to many individuals within it."

Homburg, since you agreed with me on that point I'm not sure why you're now objecting to the idea of CM, EG, and others as "special-case people on the right." That's what being "outnumbered and overrun" means! There are more "hate-mongering, fear-mongering culture warriors" than non-fist-pumping true conservatives on the right.

 

[Netzach]

Eh, most left-wingers don't like to flog people, etc either. Kink is not the sole province of the left, y'all just tend to be a tiny bit more honest about it. Let's face it, as has been said on here, at least democrats fuck girls. The republicans seem to get into office and wander about buggering pages between commitee meetings, and wipe their dicks on the Constitution.

In my own case, I can look around the table at my local munch group and see that almost all of them are conservative. It's a regional thing. That said, those people are all likely to be in support of same sex marriage and sexual freedom by virtue of their involvement in alternative lifestyles.

----



Those people scare me. They really do. But if I accept that Savage is responsible, I also need to accept that video games could be responsible for Columbine or Va Tech, or that Ozzy is responsible for random satanic rituals or somesuch. While there are unbalanced individuals who will key off of random influence, I just don't see that the random influence has culpability

Now, if you want to point to racially motivated killings and they find a copy of the Turner Diaries earmarked, highlighted, and annotated, then I am more willing to look towards culpability. That is a case where the author really does call for that sort of thing.

OK, you persuaded me. I'm pretty clear on the porn-wars violent-movie wars. I suppose the fact that the world IS changing and progressing and demographics are changing is going to set some people off. I think it's more a question of someone being SO alienated SO unable to see himself as participant that his only choice in his own mind is to kill people.


I do think it's up to people to condemn it, though. I think it may suck that I get charged with the job of saying "not every Jew loves Israeli bulldozers" and every moderate Muslim gets stuck saying "not all of us want to blow things up." So it is that conservatives who don't appreciate this have the onus of distancing themselves. I'm FINALLY seeing billboards by some ecumenical Christian groups saying "we don't think this" - would have been nice to see some through the last 20 years, but I'll take what I can get.

If you are not actively saying this is wrong you are saying it is right.

Until I know otherwise, I think it's only sane to assume it's condoned. When I hear someone ID as conservative, right, and Republican there's no reason to think I'm not talking to my mother till I know otherwise.

 

[Homburg]

I really, really, really hate to say this, but...I think the "unwashed masses" of the right wing/conservativism don't think. Perhaps THAT is the difference between the conservatives on Lit vs. the conservatives elsewhere. Too many people don't think, they blindly follow. (A good place to leap into a religion debate, but that's not for here.)

Thanks for putting it so succinctly, CM - the problem is that many people just don't think as much as you do.

I would argue that it is the difference between the liberals on Lit and their unwashed counterparts as well. I know plenty of knee-jerk liberals that just listen to whatever their union/newspaper/etc tells me and doesn't think critically on it.

Much like Netzach has her family of knee-jerk conservative mouthpieces, my own family has its' fair share knee-jerk liberal mouthpieces. My mom's family is from an all union coal town, and are almost all single-issue pro-labour voters. The majority of them listen to what the union says, and that's the extent of their politcal education. The unions there are all strongly democratic, and thus they are too.

Interestingly, the whole town is like that, and it also happens to be a hotbed of racism and bigotry. Lots of liberals there directing hate towards blacks and hispanics. *shrug*

 

[Etoile]

So this thread has been an educational process for me, right? Listening and learning? So far the best thing I have learned is: "Litsters are more intelligent thinkers than non-Litsters."

 

[JMohegan]

To return to the opening of the tread, the Moyers' program dealt with the fact that a man entered a Unitarian Church and opened fire to kill as many liberals as possible. It was assumed that he was generally upset by his economic situation and was taking it out on people he assumed to be the object of his discontent.

A search of his home turned up books by Savage and O'Rielly with passages that called for the killing/ extermination of liberals marked. It is rather obvious that he read these books and took these ideas into actuality.

I don't listen to that sort of program because I don't need to get my blood pressure worked up. I have read more than enough of that sort of thing coming out of the Germany of the '30s and '40s. If the questions is one of inciting to violence, I think the delineation is rather clear. I hear liberals criticize the right frequently. I do not hear liberals calling for the death of those who disagree.

The right takes the approach of "agree with me or leave the country." The next step is "you didn't leave so you deserve to die." Savage and his ilk openly refer to people as "insects" and "vermin." I have never heard any liberal use such terms.

And incidentally, when it comes to denunciations of the "liberal media," the classic is Paul Joseph Goebbels' speech at the 1934 Nazi Party Rally in Nuremberg. [View Leni Riefenstahl's film The Triumph of the Will for the speech.]

A great many post here have been about the idea that the extremists don't respect the middle. Respect is one thing; pulling a trigger is an entirely different can of worms.

I found the text of the Goebbels speech here. An excerpt follows.

"Propaganda, too, has a system. It cannot be stopped and started whenever one wishes. In the long run, it can only be effective in the service of great ideals and far-seeing principles. And propaganda must be learned. It must be led only by people with a fine and sure instinct for the often changeable feelings of the people. They must be able to reach into the world of the broad masses and draw out their wishes and hopes. The effective propagandist must be a master of the art of speech, of writing, of journalism, of the poster, and of the leaflet. He must have the gift to use the major methods of influencing public opinion such as the press, film, and radio to serve his ideas and goals.

This is particularly necessary in a day when technology is advancing. Radio is already an invention of the past, since television will probably soon arrive. On the one hand successful propaganda must be a master of these methods of political opinion, but on the other it may not become stale in using them. It must find new ways and methods every day to reach success. The nature of propaganda remains the same, but the means provided by advancing technology are becoming ever broader and far-reaching. One need only consider the revolutionary impact of the invention of radio, which gave the spoken word true mass effectiveness. The technology of propaganda has changed greatly in recent years, but the art of propaganda has remained the same.

The positive national discipline of the German press would never have been possible without the complete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our propaganda."

- Joseph Goebbels at Nuremberg, 1934

 

[Homburg]

Homburg, since you agreed with me on that point I'm not sure why you're now objecting to the idea of CM, EG, and others as "special-case people on the right." That's what being "outnumbered and overrun" means! There are more "hate-mongering, fear-mongering culture warriors" than non-fist-pumping true conservatives on the right.

Largely because I know a lot of conservatives that are very much not fist-pumping mouth-breathers, conservatives that are sexually adventurous, and conservatives that are not mindless Bush-drones. I disagree that there are more fist-pumpers out there than normal people as well. I just see that the "movement" itself, the organised part, has been overrun. The fist-pumpers ar emotivated, while schmucks like me just gripe about the assholes and continue trying to make a buck.

Cheney and Perlman have more to do with modern "conservate" thought than Buckley and Goldwater, and that conceptual heart of the movement is where the overrun occurred.

I will stand by my assertion that the majority of the conservatives in this country, much like their liberal counterparts, are just the aforementioned schmucks trying to make a buck. They may be listening to the culture warriors, but they aren't taking violent part in that war themselves.

 

[JMohegan]

From the Moyers piece:

"If you look at the history of like situations like in Rwanda in 1994, the talk radio was a big part of leading to the conditions that created a genocide. The Hutu radio disc jockeys would call the Tutsi cockroaches. There's the sense that these aren't human beings. You know, they're not human beings with children or grandchildren. These are cockroaches. And when you hear in talk radio that liberals are evil, that they are traitors, that they are godless, that they are on the side of the terrorist. That's hate language. You don't negotiate with evil people. You don't live in community with people you consider to be traitors."



Sorry, folks. We'll have to agree to respectfully disagree on this issue.

I do NOT put talk radio in the same category as video games and porn.

 

[Netzach]

From the Moyers piece:

"If you look at the history of like situations like in Rwanda in 1994, the talk radio was a big part of leading to the conditions that created a genocide. The Hutu radio disc jockeys would call the Tutsi cockroaches. There's the sense that these aren't human beings. You know, they're not human beings with children or grandchildren. These are cockroaches. And when you hear in talk radio that liberals are evil, that they are traitors, that they are godless, that they are on the side of the terrorist. That's hate language. You don't negotiate with evil people. You don't live in community with people you consider to be traitors."



Sorry, folks. We'll have to agree to respectfully disagree on this issue.

I do NOT put talk radio in the same category as video games and porn.

As I see it - people are not getting conflicting messages or realities. If you seal yourself off and listen to this stuff as gospel, it's because there's something very wrong in your life. It's because you're not getting out enough, because you live in a dysfunctional suburban habitrail and your job sucks ass and you feel the world is against you inherently. There are points of intervention that are getting missed here, just as powerfully as for the school shooters.

The Hutu, like the rural Germans of Weimar-era Germany, were disenfranchised and isolated people who DID feel the world against them, and not necessarily incorrectly so.


No offense, but why not?

I mean they're powerful media. In some ways they hit us even more in the animal brain. A lot of porn is made by happy well paid people and a LOT of porn is absolutely hateful shit with people who don't want to be there in it, everything the anti-porn feminists say it is. Let's not oversimplify it. I think porn has a right to exist, and hopefully the kind that the talent can control and benefit from will be a beacon to people in some way.

 

[Homburg]

OK, you persuaded me. I'm pretty clear on the porn-wars violent-movie wars. I suppose the fact that the world IS changing and progressing and demographics are changing is going to set some people off. I think it's more a question of someone being SO alienated SO unable to see himself as participant that his only choice in his own mind is to kill people.


I do think it's up to people to condemn it, though. I think it may suck that I get charged with the job of saying "not every Jew loves Israeli bulldozers" and every moderate Muslim gets stuck saying "not all of us want to blow things up." So it is that conservatives who don't appreciate this have the onus of distancing themselves. I'm FINALLY seeing billboards by some ecumenical Christian groups saying "we don't think this" - would have been nice to see some through the last 20 years, but I'll take what I can get.

If you are not actively saying this is wrong you are saying it is right.

Until I know otherwise, I think it's only sane to assume it's condoned. When I hear someone ID as conservative, right, and Republican there's no reason to think I'm not talking to my mother till I know otherwise.

This is something I strongly agree with. If you can stomach identifying yourself as republican or conservative with no additional explanation or qualifiers, then I can only assume that you are either woefully uninformed, or cognizant and approving of the offenses committed under your chosen banner.

 

[JMohegan]

Largely because I know a lot of conservatives that are very much not fist-pumping mouth-breathers, conservatives that are sexually adventurous, and conservatives that are not mindless Bush-drones. I disagree that there are more fist-pumpers out there than normal people as well. I just see that the "movement" itself, the organised part, has been overrun. The fist-pumpers ar emotivated, while schmucks like me just gripe about the assholes and continue trying to make a buck.

Cheney and Perlman have more to do with modern "conservate" thought than Buckley and Goldwater, and that conceptual heart of the movement is where the overrun occurred.

I will stand by my assertion that the majority of the conservatives in this country, much like their liberal counterparts, are just the aforementioned schmucks trying to make a buck. They may be listening to the culture warriors, but they aren't taking violent part in that war themselves.

I don't believe that one has to be actively violent in order to be an enabler.

I guess this gets back to the second grade thing. Bullies in power, on the radio and in the White House. And a whole hell of a lot of people just standing by.

 

[JMohegan]

As I see it - people are not getting conflicting messages or realities. If you seal yourself off and listen to this stuff as gospel, it's because there's something very wrong in your life. It's because you're not getting out enough, because you live in a dysfunctional suburban habitrail and your job sucks ass and you feel the world is against you inherently. There are points of intervention that are getting missed here, just as powerfully as for the school shooters.


No offense, but why not?

I mean they're powerful media. In some ways they hit us even more in the animal brain.

Is there any game or porn clip that speaks with the perceived authority of Limbaugh in this country?

Any game or clip that specifically addresses political issues? Any game or clip, the purpose of which is to mobilize citizens to pressure Congress with a blizzard or emails, or motivate their hate-filled audience to get out and vote in a particular way?


Again, from the Moyers piece -

RICK KARR: Last year's debate over the immigration reform bill became a case study for Rory O'Connor. As arguments went back and forth, some of the language turned venomous. Hosts amped up their audiences' outrage with attacks on the bill's supporters and verbal assaults on immigrants.

NEAL BOORTZ: "I already have received at least one brilliant email today about the immigration problem [...]this person sent me an email, said when we defeat this illegal alien amnesty bill and when we yank out the welcome mat and they all start going back to Mexico, as a going-away gift let's all give them a box of nuclear waste[...]tell 'em it can, it'll heat tortillas."

BILL O'REILLY: "But do you understand what the NEW YORK TIMES wants? And the far left want? They want to break down the white, Christian male power structure which you are a part and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have."

RICK KARR:O'Connor says the result stunned Washington.

RORY O'CONNOR: There were massive numbers of emails and letters and phone calls. You know, senators said, they had to have two or three people in their office answering the calls. That was all that they could do. They were inundated. And beyond that, how do you get their attention? Well, I tell you. If you send those threatening letter to a senator's home, that gets his attention pretty fast.

RICK KARR: Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez got a threatening letter at home. North Carolina Republican Richard Burr got a threatening call at his office. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham told the NEW YORK TIMES that he and others had received threats, too. The TIMES also reported that a mass email opposing the bill suggested that its supporters needed to be "taken out by ANY MEANS". The bipartisan support collapsed, the bill died and right-wing talk-radio hosts took credit.

RORY O'CONNOR: This is evidence of their vast power. I mean, you know, President George Bush was pulling out all his political capital to get immigration reform passed. Trent Lott was backing him up with everything he had. And guess what? The President and the Republican leadership and Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership, they all lost. And they lost to a bunch of radio jocks.

 

[Homburg]

From the Moyers piece:

"If you look at the history of like situations like in Rwanda in 1994, the talk radio was a big part of leading to the conditions that created a genocide. The Hutu radio disc jockeys would call the Tutsi cockroaches. There's the sense that these aren't human beings. You know, they're not human beings with children or grandchildren. These are cockroaches. And when you hear in talk radio that liberals are evil, that they are traitors, that they are godless, that they are on the side of the terrorist. That's hate language. You don't negotiate with evil people. You don't live in community with people you consider to be traitors."



Sorry, folks. We'll have to agree to respectfully disagree on this issue.

I do NOT put talk radio in the same category as video games and porn.

You said:

I'm not talking about Germany, or Latin America, or the U.S. 200 years ago, or any time & place other than the U.S. right now.

So why does Rwanda, almost 15 years ago, matter?

That said, media influence in such places is a VASTLY different animal. Rwanda is not exactly the first world. Here even poor people have internet connections, access to libraries, etc. Even Joe fist-pumping mouth-breather can fact-check Savage if he says something crazy. A Hutu dirt farmer is not going to be as likely to have that option, so the radio may well be his only source of commentary and news from the outside.

 

[Netzach]

Is there any game or porn clip that speaks with the perceived authority of Limbaugh in this country?

Any game or clip that specifically addresses political issues? Any game or clip, the purpose of which is to mobilize citizens to pressure Congress with a blizzard or emails, or motivate their hate-filled audience to get out and vote in a particular way?


Again, from the Moyers piece -

RICK KARR: Last year's debate over the immigration reform bill became a case study for Rory O'Connor. As arguments went back and forth, some of the language turned venomous. Hosts amped up their audiences' outrage with attacks on the bill's supporters and verbal assaults on immigrants.

NEAL BOORTZ: "I already have received at least one brilliant email today about the immigration problem [...]this person sent me an email, said when we defeat this illegal alien amnesty bill and when we yank out the welcome mat and they all start going back to Mexico, as a going-away gift let's all give them a box of nuclear waste[...]tell 'em it can, it'll heat tortillas."

BILL O'REILLY: "But do you understand what the NEW YORK TIMES wants? And the far left want? They want to break down the white, Christian male power structure which you are a part and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have."

RICK KARR:O'Connor says the result stunned Washington.

RORY O'CONNOR: There were massive numbers of emails and letters and phone calls. You know, senators said, they had to have two or three people in their office answering the calls. That was all that they could do. They were inundated. And beyond that, how do you get their attention? Well, I tell you. If you send those threatening letter to a senator's home, that gets his attention pretty fast.

RICK KARR: Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez got a threatening letter at home. North Carolina Republican Richard Burr got a threatening call at his office. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham told the NEW YORK TIMES that he and others had received threats, too. The TIMES also reported that a mass email opposing the bill suggested that its supporters needed to be "taken out by ANY MEANS". The bipartisan support collapsed, the bill died and right-wing talk-radio hosts took credit.

RORY O'CONNOR: This is evidence of their vast power. I mean, you know, President George Bush was pulling out all his political capital to get immigration reform passed. Trent Lott was backing him up with everything he had. And guess what? The President and the Republican leadership and Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership, they all lost. And they lost to a bunch of radio jocks.

No.

But there's tons of game chips and porn and sometimes both that say it's fine to just blow people away if they're in the way and that the bitch loves it.

If that's not free-floating hate advocacy, I don't know what is. Unless stick two penises in girls who hate it is fine by you and hit gay people with things is not, as messages go.

Personally, though, I think sometimes there's a steam valve effect in these things too. Just like bellowing virtually at WD is a small satisfaction in the world "they" control for someone like you/me, no?

(and I admit enjoying girls with two penises in them who don't necessarily look like they're the one who thought that up from time to time myself)

Being a dittohead at least got my mother out to volunteer for the NYC RNC four years ago. While that kind of makes me want to puke, she wound up volunteering as a literacy volunteer later helping a young girl from Madagascar with her english homework. I think one led to the other, in a nearly psychotic level of irony. It's all very weird and complex.

 

[JMohegan]

So why does Rwanda, almost 15 years ago, matter?

I mentioned it to address the specific assertion equating talk radio to video games and porn.

 

[Homburg]

Is there any game or porn clip that speaks with the perceived authority of Limbaugh in this country?

Any game or clip that specifically addresses political issues? Any game or clip, the purpose of which is to mobilize citizens to pressure Congress with a blizzard or emails, or motivate their hate-filled audience to get out and vote in a particular way?

Porn or video game? Nah, but move into regular movies and music and you do see those exact calls and issues addressed, and done so with vigour, hate, and exhortations to action/voting. Video games and porn just happen to be hot button issues mentioned. Other media sources out there with plenty of push.

 

[JMohegan]

No.

But there's tons of game chips and porn and sometimes both that say it's fine to just blow people away if they're in the way and that the bitch loves it.

If that's not free-floating hate advocacy, I don't know what is.

Personally, though, I think sometimes there's a steam valve effect in these things too. Just like bellowing virtually at WD is a small satisfaction in the world "they" control for someone like you/me, no?

Haha, yes.

If video games & porn are "free-floating hate advocacy," I guess I'd describe right-wing radio is "politically focused hate advocacy." Perhaps that's why it seems more dangerous in my book.

 

[Netzach]

For well adjusted people, I think the steam-valve effect is the one these things have.

However - I think we, as a culture and a nation are becoming increasingly LESS happy, well adjusted, socially connected, and personally invested.

So the danger factor goes up.

 

[caela]

Homburg, since you agreed with me on that point I'm not sure why you're now objecting to the idea of CM, EG, and others as "special-case people on the right." That's what being "outnumbered and overrun" means! There are more "hate-mongering, fear-mongering culture warriors" than non-fist-pumping true conservatives on the right.

I know you meant this for Homburg but I had to comment on it. I don't think that he, CM, EG, myself, or any of the other self-identified conservatives on this board are special cases. I think we are actually much more the norm and that you are right only in that the hate-mongers have outshouted us.

To some degree this is the fault of the media because, in all honesty, the hate-mongers bring in better ratings/readerships with their ranting than more level heads would. To some degree this is also our own fault because we recognize it for what it is and many of us simply don't engage these people (knowing it would be pointless because they won't hear anything that disagrees with them) and let them rant instead of giving whomever is focusing on them another point of view.

 

[subbie_333]

If you are not actively saying this is wrong you are saying it is right.

Sounds a lot like "if you are not with us [in fighting the terrorists] then you are one of them". As i mentioned several pages back, i believe that the vast majority of people are in the middle, just wanting to be left alone to control their own lives. Many people don't want to speak out when they see an injustice simply because they don't want to have things turned around and getting attacked themselves, usually for something unrelated to the original problem. Lincoln once said "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men". So, i think that "not actively saying this is wrong" does not mean that one condones said thing.

 

[Homburg]

Sounds a lot like "if you are not with us [in fighting the terrorists] then you are one of them". As i mentioned several pages back, i believe that the vast majority of people are in the middle, just wanting to be left alone to control their own lives. Many people don't want to speak out when they see an injustice simply because they don't want to have things turned around and getting attacked themselves, usually for something unrelated to the original problem. Lincoln once said "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men". So, i think that "not actively saying this is wrong" does not mean that one condones said thing.

Not speaking for Netz, but the read I got from this statement was the one I replied to when I talked about identifying. You have called yourself a libertarian. If you do so without qualification, this means that you are saying that you generally agree with the platform of the libertarian party. The same can be said about anyone that defines themselves as aligned with any given group. If you align yourself with a given group sans exception, then, yes, you implicitly condone the positions, opinions, and actions of that group.

I do not read this as saying that anything you do not protest you agree with. I don't protest the Hutu/Tutsi conflict that JM brought up, but I have also not declared some sort of association with either group. If I called myself a member of the Hutu Supremacy Coalition however, and did not take exception to the murder of Tutsi children, then, yes, I would implicitly be announcing my conceptual support of that sort of action.

As such, if you call yourself a republican or a conservative and do not define your association and exceptions, then, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that you go along with the actions of the Bush administration, or tend to agree with the Limbaughs of the world.

 

[Netzach]

Sounds a lot like "if you are not with us [in fighting the terrorists] then you are one of them". As i mentioned several pages back, i believe that the vast majority of people are in the middle, just wanting to be left alone to control their own lives. Many people don't want to speak out when they see an injustice simply because they don't want to have things turned around and getting attacked themselves, usually for something unrelated to the original problem. Lincoln once said "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men". So, i think that "not actively saying this is wrong" does not mean that one condones said thing.

I believe Niemoller. Whether it wins me any friends or not. If you're really not a racist, you say something when you encounter one. If he has a 2x4 and plans to kill you with it, you may or may not want to wait and then write a letter to the paper where more people will read it anyway, live to fight another day.

Better people than I have been killed over these things. I owe as much to the Niemollers and Sophie Scholls of the world as I do to any US Soldier for my freedoms. I don't evpect that level of sacrifice from every human being, but no one can even stomach a moment of argument over these things? And you support me, as a queer person, then HOW?

I'm not saying HOW or WHEN YOU MUST say something, but you must generally adopt the position of saying something sometime. If everyone who didn't think this crap said loudly clearly and politically "I DON'T WANT THIS" do you think things might look a bit different?

It's easy to say "I think that's bullshit" to someone of the demographic you're worried hates you by association to alleviate their distrust. It's a lot harder to say it to your mother. Or your boss. Or your co-worker. No one wants to put themselves on the line that way. So it goes on.

Saying nothing is saying yes.

I'm rather fortunate to live somewhere where you can live your life by it without being shot on sight or thrown in jail, or, wait, thrown in jail unless you're doing it somewhere we don't want you doing it where people might see you....uh...well....oh well.

 

[subbie_333]

OK, i was waiting for somebody to bring up porn, video games, and, maybe music as examples of things/ways that cause people to do things - so that i can use a quote i have been waiting to use.

Remember several years ago those congressional hearings where they investigated music lyrics, trying to get music censored, and, in some ways tried to get the musicians to admit that their lyrics cause people to do bad things? Frank Zappa, who vehemently opposes censorship of music, was one of the artists testifying. When he was questioned as to whether he thought lyrics were dangerous and were that powerful and that lyrics really made people do bad things, his response was:

"If lyrics make people do things, how come we don't love each other?"

His point was that music lyrics are very diverse, ranging from violence to love (in all its forms), so, it is blatantly unfair and wrong to pick out one small portion of music and claim that it has a huge influence on people while totally ignoring that the rest of the music can't possibly have just as large an influence. Or, to even claim that *any* musical lyrics can have such a huge influence on people.

So, i do not believe that the whole "hate" situation is as simple as the content itself is poison and let's just eliminate the poison. i think we need to recognize that some people are more susceptible than others to be influenced by a "poison", translating that to believing that something is true when it isn't, and, then making that leap to needing to act out. In some cases, this "poison" is hate spewing from talk radio and the domino effect results in some people committing violent acts against innocent people. But, i think that most people don't allow the poison to affect them anywhere near that degree. And, on some level, like "recreational drugs", we have to recognize that "supply and demand" is a factor.

i have brought this up before, but, not to a very receptive audience, so, i won't be surprised if shouted down again. After things like Columbine and Virgina Tech and the recent church shooting, information comes out later that there were "signs" that these people were unstable. Basically, they were mentally ill and needed help. Sometimes they were given help, sometimes they were denied help, but, most if not all of the time the help just became too difficult somehow for them to be able to use (lack/denial of access, lack of funding, incorrect/incomplete diagnosis, dosages of medication, etc.). Too many times after it all comes to light, too many people just shake their heads and say something like "such a tragedy, a crazy person doing that to innocent people, crazy people are out there, but, what are ya gonna do?". And, then nothing happens to show that we as a society learned from the mistakes of the past. People, as a society, we have to do a better job of understanding mental illness, diagnosing it, and, treating it. The costs involved with doing that is much *much* *MUCH* smaller than the cost of blown up buildings and the loss of human lives.

 

[Netzach]

i have brought this up before, but, not to a very receptive audience, so, i won't be surprised if shouted down again. After things like Columbine and Virgina Tech and the recent church shooting, information comes out later that there were "signs" that these people were unstable. Basically, they were mentally ill and needed help. Sometimes they were given help, sometimes they were denied help, but, most if not all of the time the help just became too difficult somehow for them to be able to use (lack/denial of access, lack of funding, incorrect/incomplete diagnosis, dosages of medication, etc.). Too many times after it all comes to light, too many people just shake their heads and say something like "such a tragedy, a crazy person doing that to innocent people, crazy people are out there, but, what are ya gonna do?". And, then nothing happens to show that we as a society learned from the mistakes of the past. People, as a society, we have to do a better job of understanding mental illness, diagnosing it, and, treating it. The costs involved with doing that is much *much* *MUCH* smaller than the cost of blown up buildings and the loss of human lives.

Yes. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

This is why social services are a BARGAIN, fiscally, no one wants to see it that way.
The cost of getting someone extensive job training versus the cost of incarcerating the same person is NIGHT AND DAY.

 

[subbie_333]

Not speaking for Netz, but the read I got from this statement was the one I replied to when I talked about identifying. You have called yourself a libertarian. If you do so without qualification, this means that you are saying that you generally agree with the platform of the libertarian party. The same can be said about anyone that defines themselves as aligned with any given group. If you align yourself with a given group sans exception, then, yes, you implicitly condone the positions, opinions, and actions of that group.

I do not read this as saying that anything you do not protest you agree with. I don't protest the Hutu/Tutsi conflict that JM brought up, but I have also not declared some sort of association with either group. If I called myself a member of the Hutu Supremacy Coalition however, and did not take exception to the murder of Tutsi children, then, yes, I would implicitly be announcing my conceptual support of that sort of action.

As such, if you call yourself a republican or a conservative and do not define your association and exceptions, then, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that you go along with the actions of the Bush administration, or tend to agree with the Limbaughs of the world.

eh perhaps the difference in one making blanket statements versus addressing individual issues. In this politically correct world, it has become too tiring to explain one's self *so* thoroughly as to never offend anyone. Yes, i understand your point and agree with it in general. And, the idea of labels seems to get people in such a tizzy, like whether one is Republican, Libertarian, socialist, slave, or, sadist. To bastardize a saying i used a few days ago, one can't swing a label around here without hitting somebody who is offended by that label.

 

[subbie_333]

I believe Niemoller. Whether it wins me any friends or not. If you're really not a racist, you say something when you encounter one. If he has a 2x4 and plans to kill you with it, you may or may not want to wait and then write a letter to the paper where more people will read it anyway, live to fight another day. I'm not saying HOW or WHEN YOU MUST say something, but you must generally adopt the position of saying something sometime. If everyone who didn't think this crap said loudly clearly and politically "I DON'T WANT THIS" do you think things might look a bit different?

It's easy to say "I think that's bullshit" to someone of the demographic you're worried hates you by association to alleviate their distrust. It's a lot harder to say it to your mother. Or your boss. Or your co-worker. No one wants to put themselves on the line that way. So it goes on.

Saying nothing is saying yes.

I'm rather fortunate to live somewhere where you can live your life by it without being shot on sight or thrown in jail, or, wait, thrown in jail unless you're doing it somewhere we don't want you doing it where people might see you....uh...well....oh well.

OK, just to be the devil's advocate (and just to get you all feisty cus you are so cute when that happens), one can argue that by settling down into your comfortable community you are choosing to be that vast silent majority that i speak of above who just wants to be left alone to control their own lives. Wouldn't you be more effective and constructive if you lived some place hostile towards you so that you can stand up for the persecuted and convert the intolerant to be tolerant? Since you are physically not in that type of community, aren't you condoning that hatred by not being there to actively fight it?