[Vision2020] apologists for violence

[Paul Rumelhart]

I do realize the straw-man nature of my argument, if you want to look at 
it that way.  I'm just looking down the line a little bit.  It's great 
to suggest that we all censor ourselves, and that we all learn 
civility.  Human nature is such, though, that simple appeals to good 
nature and good sense will work admirably on those who already practice 
it and fail alarmingly quickly on those who don't. 

So what's the next step?  Learn to live with violent rhetoric?  Someone 
will eventually get the idea that they can man-handle this recent event 
into an attack on freedom of speech.  The only thing stopping them at 
the moment is that there is no discernible relationship between the 
attack in Tuscon and violent rhetoric on posted on websites.  If they 
had found that Laughner was a ditto-head that religiously followed Rush, 
then we'd already be knee-deep in attempts to do just that.

I'm just trying to head them off at the pass.

Paul

Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I've seen your reply to Joe's response to this post. I hope I can 
> comment without getting an invitation to sue you.
>
> I share your views on free speech. But I think what you've written 
> below has much to do with, say, the state's reaction to Assange's 
> Wikileaks revelation, and little to do with criticism of violent rhetoric.
>
> In the Wikileaks case, we see the state's reaction to the public 
> learning what it is up to: Private Manning locked up, and the Justice 
> Department trying to find ways to go after Assange. That's state action.
>
> I haven't seen anyone here saying the state should repress violent 
> speech. If they have, and I missed it, please show me. What I've seen 
> is people saying we should discourage such speech, that we should 
> regulate ourselves. That's not state action, that's self-regulation.
>
> You're making a straw man argument against inviting the state to 
> restrict freedom of speech, but no one else is suggesting we take that 
> step.
>
> Sunil
>
> > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:44:11 -0800
> > From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> > To: rhayes at frontier.com
> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] apologists for violence
> >
> >
> > I didn't read Michael O'Neal's editorial, but I do want to comment on
> > this topic.
> >
> > I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
> > When I end up defending particular examples of speech that are being
> > argued against, I'm almost always defending speech that I disagree
> > with. The reason for that is that speech I agree with is hardly ever in
> > danger of being suppressed in today's society. The main reason that I
> > defend speech I disagree with has to do with not wanting to give our
> > government the club that they can use to beat us into submission.
> >
> > I would love it if there was less violent talk surrounding politics, 
> and
> > that there were fewer racial slurs and put-downs and just generally 
> rude
> > behavior on-line, on talk radio, and on the street. However, it's a
> > better situation than giving our leaders the ability to determine what
> > is acceptable and what is not in this area. I don't trust those
> > currently in power not to abuse this, and even if I did I wouldn't 
> trust
> > their unknown replacements not to abuse this after those in power were
> > voted out or ran up against their term limits.
> >
> > If you are repulsed by political candidates flinging violent rhetoric,
> > imagine how much you would hate it once they have the power to tell you
> > what you can and cannot say.
> >
> > I would like others to tone down their rhetoric and I would love for
> > them to use reasonable logic and debate rather than trying to incite
> > people emotionally, but I'm not willing to unleash a demon in order to
> > get them to stop.
> >
> > In my opinion, if we want to stay a free country (assuming we still are
> > one) then we need to push back against governmental control on 
> speech in
> > every way possible and make sure that the exceptions are extremely 
> clear
> > and well thought out.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > roger hayes wrote:
> > > Regarding Michael O'Neals recent editorial.
> > > I am repulsed by so many people defending the right to scream "Fire!"
> > > in crowded theaters. We need to understand what we do when we incite
> > > people to riot or violence. I don't give a hoot from which quarter
> > > the rhetoric is flung, telling people "Don't retreat, Reload" and the
> > > thousands of other vindictives being hurled at the public is nothing
> > > but sedition at worst, and trash talk at best. It is designed to
> > > prick at the raw nerves of fear and hate in which modern life seems
> > > to be so rich these days. How does the rest of the world view us? Do
> > > they hear the angry and often violent talk of media baboons
> > > advocating death sentences on people with whom they disagree. Do
> > > they get wind of ridiculous racial slurs against world leaders and
> > > languages other than English? Do they fear to visit the United States
> > > out of worry for their personal safety because of our growing
> > > reputation for violence and anger?
> > > A civil and healthy debate about our responsibility as citizens, and
> > > particularly as media or governmental figures to rein in our language
> > > is a good thing. Shish, we need to take back our dignity!
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Roger Hayes
> > > Moscow
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================