Categories
reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Congresswoman shot, six others killed: The predictable outcome of violent rhetoric

>

Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head at a public appearance today. Six others were killed in the attack; one a judge, one a 9-year-old girl. Giffords is reportedly recovering after surgery to treat her wounds. The suspect is in custody; he’s apparently a conspiracy nut.

As a number of observers have already pointed out, this kind of violence is the predictable outcome of the sort of violent rhetoric we’ve been hearing for years from Republicans, Tea Partiers and others on the right. And of course there have been numerous instances of right-wing activists bringing guns to public events. As the Daily Beast notes:

At a town hall at another Safeway store in Arizona in August, Giffords called the police when an angry opponent of the legislation dropped a gun on the floor during the event. After the bill passed, Giffords was one of several Democratic members to have their office windows vandalized.

Giffords was also included on Sarah Palin’s “target map,” released in March of last year, which featured gun crosshairs superimposed over her target’s districts on a United States map. The graphic was removed from Palin’s website today. Giffords’ Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event in which he invited supporters to shoot a machine gun. “Get on target for victory,” an ad for the event read.

Blogger Echidne of the snakes observes:

The Republican right has been using explicitly violent language for more than a year, encouraging people with guns to insert themselves into politics, in the case of Sharon Angle, explicitly advocating the use of guns when politics doesn’t produce the results they want. There is nothing ambiguous about it, this is the open advocacy for assassination. This isn’t a tragedy, there is nothing mysterious or unintentional about it. This will not be the last. Sarah Palin was the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sharon Angle was a Republican candidate for the Senate, many, official Republican candidates clearly advocated the use of guns in politics during the campaign. The killing has started, the time to let them off the hook for the results of their policy just ended, people are already dying.

I think Echidne is overstating the intention of those talking about guns. But at the same time I think any politician who claims to be “surprised” that someone with a gun took their talk about guns seriously is being disingenuous at best.

But we shouldn’t just talk about the Republicans and Tea Partiers. While they may be the ones who are primarily to blame for introducing violence into mainstream political discourse,  those fringe-dwelling conspiracy-mongers who talk in similar terms, and fill their readers’ and listeners’ head with apocalyptic nonsense, may have been the primary influence in this particular case.

This is one of the reasons that I’m troubled by the violent anti-women rhetoric I sometimes see in the mansophere. For some people, it’s merely rhetoric. But the fact is that some people take this sort of rhetoric all too seriously — as those who use this rhetoric know or should know. All those who’ve engaged in it have blood on their hands.

EDITED TO ADD: Below, a graphic (now taken down) from Sarah Palin’s web site:

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yohan
9 years ago

>David Futrelle said… Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok? No, it is NOT OK to kill her. Of course not.And again, you forget to mention it, it is also not ok to kill or injure others next to her.She is not the only victim of this crazy guy running amok. She even survived somehow, while others are dead.—–It is however also NOT OK to blame MRAs for this crime only because the killer was a man.It is nothing wrong about to discuss, how this crime could happen. And one serious problem I see, is missing security. Even if you disagree with that, USA is known internationally for its gun-culture and so is Mexico and some other Latin American countries. Unfortunately, USA exported its gun-culture up to Philippines in the past and recently up to Iraq.

Yohan
9 years ago

>"How many more Sodinis do we have to have?" booboonation What about Sabine in Germany?Sickos are everywhere, worldwide, and not always they are American men.In this case the sicko in Germany was a female.September 2010, not such a long time ago.4 people shot dead, and 18 injured ….http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/weltgeschehen/article9762953/Der-Mann-der-durch-Kopfschuss-sterben-sollte.html

booboonation
9 years ago

>I would think that women abuse children more than men, that would be my instinct on that matter, so those stats don't surprise me, I am also not surprised that men are more responsible for when the child actually dies. That is the whole point when we discuss these matters. Why do men end up dead more after suicide attempts? They choose more lethal methods. They are just more brutal across the board. My comments are germane to MRAs. These threats the politicians were getting goes back to the vote on health care. When bricks went through their windows and they got death threats, Pain said don't back off, reload and put up the map with the crosshairs. On the View Hasslebeck condemned this and the panel strongly warned the talking heads to stop with the rhetoric. In the midst of this on this board, people continue with the rhetoric and nobody that I have seen has taken issue with John's statement that a mother is responsible for when another person murders, in this case he said a step father. Let me say this, when you see all the signs of something bad stalking you and threatening you there is no way these dynamics are not going to stand out and even this post tied in MRA rhetoric. This blog can be hilarious, but the owner knows there will be tragic days around here due to these dynamics. Men kill and attempt to kill women all the time, men with manifestos, not excluded.

Yohan
9 years ago

>David: You really do have some odd ideas about the US. We don't all walk around armed here. It seems not all US-citizens share your opinion.For sure police and ambulance services are poorly organized in Tucson.Some updates to this case and comments…Tucson, Arizona is near to the Mexican border.Mexico has a total gun ban, and the worst record for killed and kidnapped politicians and other high-level figures in the world. With more than 28,000 dead in Mexico from the drug war, it is clear that leaving guns only in the hands of the cartels and criminals will only make us all vulnerable.Eyewitness report… helped hold the gunman down while waiting for the sheriff to arrive, about 15-to-20 minutes later. The EMS came about 30 minutes later. Rayle said he was “stunned” by how long it took medical help to arrive.”Police needs 20 minutes to arrive in a supermarket in an American city next to the dangerous Mexican border to arrest the guy who was running amok. 20 minutes!The ambulance needs 30 minutes to arrive.30 minutes!That's too long. By any international standard. I share the concern of these American people.Gun-culture in USA is reasonable, it's really better to own your gun and use it if you live in this country.http://gawker.com/5728501/http://gawker.com/5728605/arizona-shooter-explained-mind-control-on-youtube

booboonation
9 years ago

>And…the abusive and coercive language used here,not germane to the topic has been duly noted. Abusive does not mean an F word, most of the abuse dished out my philosophical opponents of feminism is passive aggressive, or fits the "gaslighting" model. Historically women pointing out bad male behavior are 'hysterical', or 'insane' and so that is the focus. I am not easily coerced or abused in that way, but it's been duly noted. I am not intimidated by being labeled a misandrist, either. That might be a tool these men can use effectively on other patrons here, not me.

Yohan
9 years ago

>@booboonationNo idea about what you are talking, maybe you are posting in the wrong thread?This thread is about a female politician shot in Arizona.And yes, it's all the fault of these MRAs, always these misogynists…

richard
9 years ago

>David said: "Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?"I want to know who she is. I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. If she was a great politician who tried hard to help her constituents, was fair and just then she has all of the sorrow in the world from me. However, most politicians are scum and I don't have much feeling for them in either way. Generally I don't give two shits about politicians. They forget the saying the government that governs least governs best.If she was a typical politician, a bigot or a man hater, why should I care? Feminsts can never get their estrogen addled brains around the fact that if you don't care about other people and shove shit laws down their throats then other people are unlikely to give a shit about you. Again, if she was a fair and honorable women/politician, then my heart goes out to her, but how many politicians are fair and honorable?I just think the rush to deify her when no one here seems to know how she voted on anything is ridiculous. Also, since I didn't get to this before, blaming "violence speech" or whatever you want to call it, for this man's actions, firstly suggest that people have no free will and secondly sounds vaguley like an attempt to silence your politcal enemies. Honestly, running this thread the way you did seems very vulgar to me. Your thinking seems to be : Injured pretty female politician – incite fear – link to MRA's – Take away their right to speak, while feminsts keep their right to speech – Good times! That doesn't seem very noble to me.Random Brother

richard
9 years ago

>booboonation said " . . .Abusive does not mean an F word, most of the abuse dished out my philosophical opponents of feminism is passive aggressive, or fits the "gaslighting" model."In other words you feminsts get to tell us MRA'S what words we can or cannot use in debate with you, while you get to continue and use any words, insults, snarkiness, or outright vulgarity as you see fit. More feminist fairness I see.booboonation said: "Historically women pointing out bad male behavior are 'hysterical', or 'insane' and so that is the focus."Or maybe the women were just hysterical or insane as you seem to be.booboonation said: "I am not easily coerced or abused in that way, but it's been duly noted. I am not intimidated by being labeled a misandrist, either. That might be a tool these men can use effectively on other patrons here, not me." Yeah, I shaking in my boots.Random Brother

booboonation
9 years ago

>One of my messages has been caught in spam, plz stand by, it should appear directly before my previous message.

booboonation
9 years ago

>Richard, so someone "not" being coerced makes you shake in your boots? Stay away from that PUA info. I don't know how one could extrapolate what you said from what I said. I'm saying I'm wise to being ad hom attacked with the attempt to coerce me. If that translates to you as me telling you what you can and cannot say, not sure what to say about that, it seems pretty silly to me. Rarely is what I say directly dealt with. Lots of subject changing, or attempts at vilification or passive aggressive psycho analyzing. (Gets the PA label because you may deny that you meant anything by it, which is laughable). And when I say, "call me a misandrist all you want", I fail to see how I'm trying to control what you say. I'm letting you know that your tactics will not keep me from pointing out MRA lies about domestic violence or murder statistics generally, or the warning signs of an anti-feminist stalker, and what that could ultimately mean to the feminist. Rhetoric inflames those men, enablers fan away.

John Taylor
9 years ago

>None of you have convinced me yet how her having a gun would have prevented this fellow from sneaking through a crowd and shooting her in the head. But keep trying, I suppose.

Katz
9 years ago

>I think Richard and a few others are missing the entire point. Using violent rhetoric in your campaigns/rallies/whatever can and will end in violence like we saw yesterday. For godssakes what was Palin and her crew thinking of — putting crosshairs on their "enemies" names on a map distributed on the internet? It's been getting worse over the years.It doesn't matter who the politician is and what their platform is; it's unacceptable behavior to incite such hatred. Palin and co. have some blood on their hands.

richard
9 years ago

>@ John TaylorSpoken like a true liberal pansy. Just give up and let the criminals do what they want! Jesus.Random Brother

richard
9 years ago

>@ KatzYou can in no way shape or form prove that the words MADE this man shoot this politician. Either a person has free will or they don't. Let me put it this way, if I threw hate speech at you would you then go and kill whoever I indicated should be killed? If the answer is no, then you should understand why what you claim is wrong.Random Brother

richard
9 years ago

>@ booboonation:Your whole post boils down to "I super tough girly girl and I'll never give up and I'm always right! GRRRRLLLLL POWER!!!"You're just another mouthy infant feminist who hasn't done a damn thing in the real world. You don't know anything. Random Brother

Katz
9 years ago

>Richard: no, I can't prove it. But do you find rabble rousing acceptable? If you throw hate speech at some deranged minds often enough, you get what we saw yesterday. Campaigns were not so uncivil in the past; the rhetoric keeps getting more violent and look where we are at today. Do you like where this is leading us? Ms. Palin and her like-minded comrades deserve every bit of censure they're going to receive for this.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Richard-you are okay with people being shot regardless of their current employment?Even someone in the military who is paid to be shot is not a reason to celebrate their injury or death from being shot.Good god…go look up her record. She was a good, kind decent woman and she was trying to do her best to be accessible to her constituents after the constant violence/threats given to her. And here you come-"was she against men? Until I know I am not going to feel bad she was shot!"

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Yohan, just so you know, that info you posted on how long it took the sheriff/rescue to get to the scene is wrong. That Gawker story was based on one alleged eyewitness' claims, and that person must have been so discombobulated by what had happened that they imagined things taking much longer than they did. Here's a timeline:9:58 a.m. — Giffords posts message on Twitter inviting constituents to event at the Safeway supermarket in Tucson.10:00 a.m.– Town hall meeting begins.10:10 a.m. — Gunman opens fire.10:11 a.m. — First 911 call is received10:19 a.m. — 6-member rescue crew arrives.10:22 a.m. — Suspect in police custody.10:24 a.m. — Wounded victims removed from the scene.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/09/timeline-shooting-rampage-arizona/I saw another news article saying that rescue arrived by 10:16; the discrepancy may be because they were held back for several minutes by dispatchers until they were sure the gunman had been taken down.

Yohan
9 years ago

>richard said… David said: "Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?"I want to know who she is. I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. Nobody deserves to become a victim of such a crime by a crazy guy.About your question, as far as I see in the news, she was not helpful to any men's issue. Her activity was much appreciated by NOW…..consistently endorsed by NOW … says this article below.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/01/09/now-blames-shooting-extreme-conservatives-opposing-progressive-solutions

DarkSideCat
9 years ago

>I agree with John Taylor on the gun issue, but I want to point out that even if I didn't Yohan and Whitman's victim blaming is bullshit. Peaceful unarmed victim, armed shooter, must be the victim's fault. Geesh, you MRA lot are damned quick to blame any female victim of violence. Yep, it's Giffords' fault for not carrying a gun, but also the fault of the violent gun toting American culture, which she should have participated in if she didn't want shot in the head, making it her fault. Nice logic there. I also wanted to point out that the crap about the Mexican border and Tucson is utter bullshit. US cities along the border DO NOT have higher rates of violent crime, and Tucson's violent crime rate is lower than that of many American cities, including Wichita, Tampa, Philidelphia, Minneapolis, Newark, and tons of others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate). Border cities do not have higher rates of violent crime than non-border cities (in fact, the general trend is the opposite). Bullshit racist fearmongering about Latinos isn't cool. The state of Arizona (and the rest of the Southwest US) used to be a part of Mexico, dammit, it has always had plenty of Mexicans (see hear for a brief history lesson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War).As to Gifford's politics, regardless of what they are, political assassinations are not cool. Also, richard, you admit you know nothing of her politics but automatically assume she is "anti gun and pro illegal". You know, it is pretty damned easy to look up a seated congressperson's record. There is even a site that gives breif summaries of known positions on every major issue, here's Gifford's page http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Gabby_Giffords.htm When it comes to guns, she is against semi-automatics but for allowing people to carry concealed guns, for standardizing concealed weapons laws across states, and for teaching kids basic gun safety. That is actually rather pro-gun for a federal representative. As to immigration, she voted for stricter border control and has opposed Arizona's controversial profiling law. That's a moderate to conservative immigration policy, not a radical progressive one. She is also anti-drug, pro-Iraq war, and pro-"faith based iniatives", as well as pro-choice, pro-increased school funding, and pro-federal funding of health care. Gifford is a moderate over here in what we call reality. It appears that the shooter had ties to anti-semetic white supremecist groups, making the likely political motive here either his views on immigration or his dislike of the fact that she was Jewish (Gifford is the first Jewish federal congress person from her state).

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"Yep, it's Giffords' fault for not carrying a gun, but also the fault of the violent gun toting American culture, which she should have participated in if she didn't want shot in the head, making it her fault. Nice logic there."—DarkSideCatActually, that's your faulty logic working here, including a forgone conclusion, but hey . . .

Yohan
9 years ago

>DarkSideCat: Peaceful unarmed victim, armed shooter, must be the victim's fault. Stupid comment.This person, gender irrelevant, was a politician and received frequently threats in the past. The office was also a target of a violent attack.To ignore such threats and to claim 'I am peaceful and unarmed' is wrong. To consider how to prevent a crime against your person, your family members and your property if you are a rich businessman, politician or a well-known celebrity etc. is nowadays a very important topic almost everywhere in this world, not only in USA.To be against crime prevention is bare nonsense. About Arizona, Tucson and other cities in USA along the Mexican border, it is well-known that they all are suffering related to illegal border activities.Tucson is not a safe city..http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/az/tucson/crime/There is a well-known gun-culture existing in USA throughout its entire history. To claim otherwise shows that this person has no idea about the relationship between the American people and firearms.About protection of a politician with armed body guards, it can be said, body guards are highly effective. For sure this crazy guy would never be able to kill 6 people and to injure 12 others. Any well-trained armed body-guard in such a situation would cover his client with his own body and in the same moment fire a dozen of live bullets at this crazy guy.

rebekah
9 years ago

>Sorry to jump in here but I was gone away from technology all weekend and didn't hear about what happened until this morning. Yohan, it doesn't sound to me like david is blaming MRA's for what happened to her and if he is then I would have to disagree as well. What I think he's trying to say is that the violent rhetoric that the right has been spouting this year (and for long before that too if you want the honest truth) influences this kind of behavior. He's drawing a parallel to the kind of rhetoric that he often sees on MRA, MRM, and MGTOW forums. Now you say that you admonish those men for doing so and I would say that we all appreciate that, and this is why David was not saying all MRA's feel this way etc. He simply stated that he sees that kind of rhetoric on the pages and it concerns him (as it should, and as it clearly does you too since you speak out against it). Regardless of your personal views however, NO ONE, feminists included, have the right to enact violent rhetoric about their political opponents.

rebekah
9 years ago

>you know what richard I am getting sick of you. Infant feminists who do nothing my ass. Let's turn it back around on you what have you done to improve our country? I for one can say that I've done a lot to improve it. I worked with my state politicians to improve domestic violence legislation (which included a provision clearly outlining that men could be victims of domestic violence) I led the team which got my state to approve comprehensive sex ed taught in schoolsI worked on the fundraising team to get a law passed which would make it easier for custodial parents to file for child support (that includes fathers, not just mothers mind you) now who is the whiny one?If you want to be slinging insults around here you better be prepared to back up your arguments.

booboonation
9 years ago

>Rebekah, I loved richard's comment because he's announcing publicly that he claims to have psychic powers. That would embarrass me to claim to know something about someone on the internet like that. Nobody is going to take him seriously at all now after that emotional tantrum and display of failed psychic powers. Good job on the self ownage, Richard. I didn't even need to respond, but I hate to see that kind of thing upset rebekah. You don't owe anyone a list of credentials. Personal attacks are the telltale sign of someone who has no argument and has failed to argue any points. 😀

DarkSideCat
9 years ago

>"To claim otherwise shows that this person has no idea about the relationship between the American people and firearms." Hahaha, that's the most hilarious statement I have seen all day. Yohan, king of ignorant statments about the US, thinks he knows more about American culture and firearms than someone born and raised in Applachia who went to universities in two different cities with high crime rates. Oh, and here's the FBI's stats on violent crime by region, note that Arizona is below the national average http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009 but, hey, who are you going to trust, a random site run by real estate agents or the FBI's crime data?

Yohan
9 years ago

>http://www.amfire.com/index.aspUSA is very well-known worldwide for its firearms industry.Of course there are no violent crimes in peaceful USA, so for what is this thread about?

richard
9 years ago

>@ rebekahrebekah said: "you know what richard I am getting sick of you."I don't care.rebekah said: "Infant feminists who do nothing my ass. Let's turn it back around on you what have you done to improve our country? I for one can say that I've done a lot to improve it. I worked with my state politicians to improve domestic violence legislation (which included a provision clearly outlining that men could be victims of domestic violence)"If it's anything like the typical feminst inspired domestic violence legislation, I find nothing helpful about it, except helping out lawyers to screw men. I know you claim that men can also be victims of DV, but I mean come on, we know what way these bills will be slanted.rebekah said: "I led the team which got my state to approve comprehensive sex ed taught in schools"So more young kids having sex and getting diseases and abortions. You consider this good?! Jesus.rebekah: "I worked on the fundraising team to get a law passed which would make it easier for custodial parents to file for child support (that includes fathers, not just mothers mind you) now who is the whiny one?"In other words, you pushed for more and more laws that will primarily harm men, and you call that helping socieity. You add that it will help men also, but clearly you don't give a shit about men. When are you going to push for laws to seriously punish false rape accusers? When are you going to push for laws to abolish alimony? When you start doing that come back and lecture me on all the good you're doing for society. Random Brother

richard
9 years ago

>@ booboonationI don't need psychic powers to figure out a dim little girl like you. Also you spew on about personal attacks being a telltale sign of someone having no argument, as if feminists never use personal attacks. I guess the next time a feminst uses a personal attack you'll be there to correct them right? That's what I thought. Little girl, please. Go back to playing with your Barbie doll collection instead of spewing your nonsensical rants here and on your worthless blog. Random Brother

rebekah
9 years ago

>@ richard First of all my state does not allow alimony payments. We are a no fault divorce state so maybe you should educate yourselfsecond the domestic violence law that I helped push through puts provisions in place that provide domestic violence shelters for men. It uses gender neutral pronouns to describe situations, which means that it HELPS men who are in that situation because it allows them to seek shelter (the law also puts a provision in place to ensure that shelters are available to male victims of domestic violence), and receive justice.third of all comprehensive sex ed does not increase STI and abortions, it decreases it. you can read about that here: ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf students who receive comprehensive sex ed start having sex at the same average age, but have fewer instances of pregnancy and STI's overall. This is proven by the teen pregnancy rates this year which are at a record low thanks to approval of comprehensive sex ed. You need to get your delusional head examined and until you do you should go crawl back under the rock in your mommies basement that you crawled out of

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>witman, that's over the line, for reasons that should be obvious to you. As are your repeated personal attacks. Cool it or I will start deleting your comments.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>rebekah, I appreciate the substantive parts of your posts, but the personal attack at the end of your last comment is inappropriate.

rebekah
9 years ago

>I'm sorry. I was out of line. However I would like to point out that what richard is saying to both booboonation and I is also personal attacks and he has continued to do so to both of us for days now without you doing anything about it and I'm sick of itI'm also extremely insulted by the fact that he is trying to turn everything I do into bad considering that the law concerning domestic violence I worked on was in response to an MRA group who actually function under peaceful terms asking for our office to do something about it. I worked for three years on that piece of legislation and it took two years of that for any legislators to take us seriously. That piece of legislation helps the men in my state so much and to be told that it is hurting them hurts me and yes I take that personally.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>rebekah, I should have made this clear, so I'll do it here:richard: cool it with the personal attacks or I will start deleting your posts.

Kratch
9 years ago

>"Yohan, it doesn't sound to me like david is blaming MRA's for what happened to her "David himself isn't… as you said, he's drawing a parallel (one just as easily draw with feminists as well…Erin Pizzey bomb threats for starters), but Booboo certainly did in her first post. When someone opposed that hateful rhetoric (you know, the thing david claims is rampent and dangerous in the MRA's, David enters and opposes the person opposing the rhetoric. This can only be identified with supporting the opinion, as one does not enter into a opposed conversation, deride one side of the arguement, and let stand the other, unless they, at least in some way, identify with the supported opinion. If he was truly opposed to Booboo's accusation, where the discussion began, he would have ether spoken against both viewpoints, or stayed out of the discussion… he didn't. He is just as guilty of allowing hateful speech on his blogs as the MRA's he condemns."He's drawing a parallel to the kind of rhetoric that he often sees on MRA, MRM, and MGTOW forums."But it's irresponsable to believe that this goes on in MRA's and not in Feminist sphere's, when it is documented that feminists have taken some pretty hostile actions with threats (bomb, 100 castrations and otherwise) and character attacks, ruining peoples career's for simply holding opposing viewpoints. by pointing at MRA's specifically, rather then identifying violent rhetoric in any ideological discussion, places a particular and unfair focus (no different then the unfair focus domestic violence has had on men, to the effect of abused men having virtually no recourse when they and their children are abused… regardless of how frequent or not, you want to believe it is). It is nothing more then an attempt to attack and shame men, and in particular, away from the MRA. And for what reason is there to oppose for allowing people to see an opposing viewpoint? or is there, perhaps, some merit to what is being said by the MRA?