If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Gifford Shooting and Sarah Palin
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I am not sure how many of you are aware of the fact that a US Congresswoman - Gabrielle Giffords - has been shot today in Arizona.
Firstly let me say that my thoughts are with her, her family and those of the other people shot. It appears to be yet another rampage. So sad.
Anyway, Twitter was pretty much instantly alive with reports of the Sarah Palin website carrying a call to her supporters to target specific seats in the next election. Giffords' was one of those. The issue which exorcised Twitter was the picture that associated it using "gun sights":
That and the fact that Palin tweeted "Don't retreat - RELOAD"
So, do you think that Palin should bear any responsibility are you, like me, of the belief that the only person to blame is the gunman?
ETA - reports also now claiming that 9-y-o girl is amongst the dead. So, so sad.
Firstly let me say that my thoughts are with her, her family and those of the other people shot. It appears to be yet another rampage. So sad.
Anyway, Twitter was pretty much instantly alive with reports of the Sarah Palin website carrying a call to her supporters to target specific seats in the next election. Giffords' was one of those. The issue which exorcised Twitter was the picture that associated it using "gun sights":
That and the fact that Palin tweeted "Don't retreat - RELOAD"
So, do you think that Palin should bear any responsibility are you, like me, of the belief that the only person to blame is the gunman?
ETA - reports also now claiming that 9-y-o girl is amongst the dead. So, so sad.
0
Comments
The gunman - it seems blatantly obvious that Palin isn't actually talking about really assassinating political rivals
In fact Sarah Palin's reaction to it is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12144057
* I assume she said this when the report was that Gabrielle Giffords was dead, the BBC now seems to have retracted that report and said she's in surgery.
Very sad news, though. Thoughts are with the families.
I don't think Palin is to blame for this, its the constitution. With no offence intended towards users of thesite who are from the USA, having a gun might make you feel safer, but if the other person who has a constitutional right to bear arms shoots you first, then there isnt much you can do about it.
Part of me is now glad that I didn't decide to visit my friends in Tucson but most of me is rational enough to realise that this could've happened anywhere, it just happened to be there.
After the all the advances humanity has made, we're still blowing each others brains out :no:
Off topic but the second amendment always makes me think of people walking around in tank tops...
Its inconceivable that her campaign team would not have considered the possibility of one of their more insane supporters acting on the gun imagery.
I imagine they were more amused than worried, the partisan politics of the US fosters hatred and violence and discourages co-operation to improve their country.
Inconceivable? As possibly tasteless any gun imagery might be, I doubt most people would think that someone might actually go out and shoot someone. Or are you saying that they did conceive the possibility and chose to ignore it? In that case, Palin and all her team would certainly be guilty.
Palin is pretty unintelligent so I would say that they had no idea that her campaign would have this outcome.
If it did have any impact as it seems like a nutter to me and it's not like that hasn't happened in the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8683596.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/622602.stm
Palin herself is in no way responsible for this, but there has certainly been rhetoric involving taking up arms against the government among the more insane members of the tea party movement (and "the more insane members" refers to quite a sizeable chunk). It's not massively surprising when rhetoric like this leads to violence, just like it isn't when any other movement has similarly extremist rhetoric or literature. We ban incitement to violence for a reason, after all.
It is all very embarrassing for Palin and her campaign team and I would not like to be one of her political advisers at this time (assuming I could ever be in the same room as her long enough to be a political adviser, but that's beside the point)
Ultimately the criminal responsibility lies with the person who pulled the trigger, but if Palin's campaign was in anyway motivation for the perpetrator I cannot see how Palin could come out of this totally unscathed. I’m no expert on US Law, but looking at some of the totally crazy decisions that come out of the courts over there it wouldn’t surprise me if there were successful civil actions against Palin were her campaign to have motivated the offender.
There really are too many ifs, buts and maybes around this case just now. We shall all have to wait and see what happens as the criminal legal system in the US takes its course and due process is completed. I’m sure by the time criminal proceedings have concluded we will know whether Palin’s campaign was any sort of motivation for the offender or not.
Other than that, I think the Daily Mash has hit the nail right on the head, in a far more witty and satirical way than I could.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/america-one-step-closer-to-realising-life-is-not-a-film-201101103410/
That constitutional right to which you refer was heavily influenced by the then century old 1689 Bill of Rights which reasserted the common law right to bear arms.
As far as my knowledge extends, the Bill of Rights has not been repealed over the last 300+ years.
If your "blame-thrower" is directed at the guilty party (the Constitution) then I suggest that the MPs of the United Kingdom start to take cover, as you, and the rest of the UK population too, still have that individual right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12145117
Post-script: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’ -- Barack Obama
Jared Lee Loughner was neither Conservative nor Liberal, Libertarian nor Populist, fan of neither Obama nor Palin. He was just a lunatic. To paint anyone as being responsible for this tragedy other than the lunatic who pulled the trigger is dishonest and Sarah Palin accurately described it as "blood libel". He was, in fact, obsessed with Gabrielle Giffords long before the shooting and, strangely enough, she was a fan of his channel on Youtube prior to the shooting.
Truly revolting statements? Came after the shooting.
Definition and background
I'm well aware of what blood libel is. I fail to see how it is not analogous or how application of it could even be deemed offensive.
I know, I just read it.
It misses a key moral point. Freedom of Speech is, for me, one of those rights which people take for granted. They seem to think that it absolves them of any moral obligations - the biggest irony is the level by which the "Christian" right seem to forget morality.
Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom to be rude.
So you think that being accused of possibly inciting another to kill is analogous to being accused of actually killing children to use their blood in your religious feasts or to justify a holocaust?
It's all just a bunch of jumping to conclusions, and it's done nothing but serve to further a few political agendas.
Freedom of speech isn't about morality, it's about legality. People should think before they speak, sure, and depending on your views there may be a plethora of things that you believe people "shouldn't" say. Legally, though, freedom of speech allows you or I to say things even if someone might possibly be offended by them, and to not constantly walk on eggshells.
There is a big difference between accidental offence and indifference.
Also, if yo think that there is no link between morality and legality then you live in a much different world to me.
First of all, yes, it does. See my response here.
Second, what do you mean by "absolve them of moral responsibilities"? And what do Christian Conservatives have to do with anything?
Yes, I believe that accusing someone of murder for the sake of damaging their character in the eyes of one's constituents is the same as accusing someone of murder for the sake of damaging their character in the eyes of one's constituents. All one needs to do is look at the video calling for Sarah Palin's death to realize that it is analagous to blood libel.
Did you just repeat yourself there mid sentence?
She hasn't been accused of murder.
If I avoid saying something because I know that someone may be offended, then I'm walking on eggshells. I'm allowed to say what's on my mind even if someone else will find it less-than-pleasant to hear. I don't think that one should be rude just for the hell of it, but I acknowledge that they're legally free to do so.
I'm also not saying that there is no link between the law and morality, not at all. It's just that one person may find it "wrong" to be rude to someone in a certain situation, whereas another will find it acceptable. Freedom of speech doesn't concern itself with what your personal definition of "rude" is, though.
I disagree. Walking on eggshells would be you avoiding saying something just in case it offends.
Not saying something because you know it would offend is just being polite.
She's been accused of responsibility for the murder (charges no different than John Gotti hiring Sammy the Bull to cement some poor mamaluke's feet.)
MoK, I'm curious. What is your position on equating Bush, his administration or any of his supporters to Hitler? Is that not protected speech because someone can find it offensive? Personally, I'd like the freedom to say that both Bush and Obama are goons.