political rhetorical tone & the shooting of a Congress woman

[PsiStar]

Excess rhetoric? Anyone?

I am surprised with the number of responders this thread has. Of course there are numerous OT, aka off topic comments. FYI in most of the auto forums I am in (subie, 'vette, cr@p mobile whatever) they get incredibly indignant about OT. Not sayin' that I care AND this is the "Politics and News" section ... so what would one expect?:'(

The point of this post!! After listening to the day's news & talking heads, I have yet to hear anything that indicates that this dufus (aka suspect) was generally politically motivated or influenced by Sarah, tea party, or any other mouth. Of course just because *I* have not heard it said doesn't mean that something sensible was said.

For the moment I think the dufus just had a really bug up his butt about Giffords. I wonder if "politics" is an issue for him, but only because he was disgruntled with her one on one to his questions 3 years ago. In other words I doubt that he paid a lot of attention to Sarah or Obama.

 

[PsiStar]

Just listening to the report of the dufus in court ...

As reported, he answered every question coherently & quite audibly.

Is/was he just looking for attention? As reported, he doesn't currently sound like a schizophrenic. But I am just an engineer & accused of being overly analytical. So what do I know?

Clearly the parents are and want to be totally uninvolved and possibly could have been uninvolved his entire life. There seeking attention ... based on information that has yet to be reported.

Seriously. If this is the case, & just supposing ... just think about all of the tangents that are at full speed!!!!!! I am thinking about the national news as well as this thread.

 

[Amused]

Just listening to the report of the dufus in court ...

As reported, he answered every question coherently & quite audibly.

Is/was he just looking for attention? As reported, he doesn't currently sound like a schizophrenic. But I am just an engineer & accused of being overly analytical. So what do I know?

Clearly the parents are and want to be totally uninvolved and possibly could have been uninvolved his entire life. There seeking attention ... based on information that has yet to be reported.

Seriously. If this is the case, & just supposing ... just think about all of the tangents that are at full speed!!!!!! I am thinking about the national news as well as this thread.

A schizophrenic can seem quite normal and engaged when all he has to deal with are yes and no questions. Especially those in the early stages as he would be right now.

It's when you ask him to explain more complex things that you start to get an idea of what a skewed sense of reality he has.

It amuses me that the press is all shocked that he seems coherent and can answer simple yes and no questions politely. Most schizophrenics can in the early stages of their illness.

All one has to do to get a gauge on his mental illness is listen to the reports from his college teacher and classmates about his behavior this past year. And from his highschool classmates who describe his behavior as increasingly erratic over the last few years starting at about 16. Classic signs, all of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The notion that his act was politically motivated is not incompatible with the notion that the shooter was "mentally ill." Asserting that it must either be one or the other is a logical fallacy, that of posing a false dichotomy. One may be mentally ill but influenced to engage in a certain behavior by environmental factors. That could include rhetoric of any variety, political or otherwise. While it is essentially certain that the shooter was "mentally ill," no one here knows enough about him or is qualified to diagnose "schizophrenia." The two terms should not be used interchangeably.

This is true, but not helpful in determining what went wrong. Considering that Giffords wasn't extreme in any sense she's not a target those who have strong political views (or even views about government itself outside of politics) it's going to be difficult or impossible to determine the actual trigger outside a psych eval. Maybe he found her mannerism annoying.

Distrust of government has been a growing trend in this country since Vietnam and Watergate. Anti-government paranoia was more common on the left 30 years ago and has become more common on the right in the past 2 decades. However, it remains quite common on both ends of the spectrum. It has also increased in toto over the past 10 years by a considerable amount. Given how rampant our cultural distrust of government has become, it is actually a surprise that this is the first incident of a U.S. Congressman being shot since Leo Ryan back in the 1970's. The vast majority of our paranoid rhetoric is talk without attendant will for action, and hence events like these are isolated and relatively far apart.

You use the word "paranoia" a few times, and I wonder what in your mind constitutes that. Considering that in recent decades politicians have by design or incompetence mislead or misused our trust on serious issues, it's not unreasonable to wonder what the motivation of any politician is. Note that I uncouple politicians from government. Government has a proper place, however when Democrats and Republicans consider themselves "correct" to the point where they are willing to derail it's legitimate role (and I realize that is subject to wide interpretation) then power is more important than service. Any one of us can bring forth examples so I won't bother. You know it's done. Now if we're talking "they put a microphone in my burger", then sure that's paranoid.

Regarding general distrust it's not that people react differently than in the past, but that we are now swimming in information and news. A police officer shoots someone in the back on the west coast and half an hour later it's news in the east. Before we would not have heard of it at all. So is it that paranoia is increasing or an increased of awareness of abuse (even if it's no better or worse than two generations ago) which makes people more skeptical? Could it be that the trigger for someone like Loughlin is "everything"- an effect of overload?

The last point I'll address that you say it's surprising that this hasn't happened more often. I disagree, because for all the bluster, most people have their heads screwed on, at least to the degree that they know shooting someone like Gifford isn't right or at least a bad idea with severe consequences. In the case of someone like Loughlin he is apparently so dissociated from reality that he couldn't even pick an ideology to shoot at. Not a "corporatist shill" or a "commie bent on taking over". She was a bizarre target picked by a strange mind.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's not a satisfying answer, but it's true nonetheless.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is true, but not helpful in determining what went wrong. Considering that Giffords wasn't extreme in any sense she's not a target those who have strong political views (or even views about government itself outside of politics) it's going to be difficult or impossible to determine the actual trigger outside a psych eval. Maybe he found her mannerism annoying.



You use the word "paranoia" a few times, and I wonder what in your mind constitutes that. Considering that in recent decades politicians have by design or incompetence mislead or misused our trust on serious issues, it's not unreasonable to wonder what the motivation of any politician is. Note that I uncouple politicians from government. Government has a proper place, however when Democrats and Republicans consider themselves "correct" to the point where they are willing to derail it's legitimate role (and I realize that is subject to wide interpretation) then power is more important than service. Any one of us can bring forth examples so I won't bother. You know it's done. Now if we're talking "they put a microphone in my burger", then sure that's paranoid.

Regarding general distrust it's not that people react differently than in the past, but that we are now swimming in information and news. A police officer shoots someone in the back on the west coast and half an hour later it's news in the east. Before we would not have heard of it at all. So is it that paranoia is increasing or an increased of awareness of abuse (even if it's no better or worse than two generations ago) which makes people more skeptical? Could it be that the trigger for someone like Loughlin is "everything"- an effect of overload?

The last point I'll address that you say it's surprising that this hasn't happened more often. I disagree, because for all the bluster, most people have their heads screwed on, at least to the degree that they know shooting someone like Gifford isn't right or at least a bad idea with severe consequences. In the case of someone like Loughlin he is apparently so dissociated from reality that he couldn't even pick an ideology to shoot at. Not a "corporatist shill" or a "commie bent on taking over". She was a bizarre target picked by a strange mind.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's not a satisfying answer, but it's true nonetheless.

Distrust and paranoia are two different things. Paranoia is, by definition, irrational. Believing that the government staged 911 is irrational. Believing that FEMA is setting up concentration camps is irrational. Believing that the government can control people's minds is irrational. These are all things that this shooter apparently believed. They are also things that millions of non-schizophrenic Americans believe. Most of the these people are probably "mentally ill" in some sense of that term, but most are clearly not psychotic. These beliefs are an outgrowth of our cultural distrust of both government and politicans, which is in itself rational to some degree. However rational it may be, the widespread distrust is fertile ground for those prone to paranoia to direct their paranoia at government and politicians.

- wolf

 

[PsiStar]

Distrust and paranoia are two different things. Paranoia is, by definition, irrational. Believing that the government staged 911 is irrational. Believing that FEMA is setting up concentration camps is irrational. Believing that the government can control people's minds is irrational. These are all things that this shooter apparently believed. They are also things that millions of non-schizophrenic Americans believe. Most of the these people are probably "mentally ill" in some sense of that term, but most are clearly not psychotic. These beliefs are an outgrowth of our cultural distrust of both government and politicans, which is in itself rational to some degree. However rational it may be, the widespread distrust is fertile ground for those prone to paranoia to direct their paranoia at government and politicians.

- wolf

Nice coherent logic, nicely phrased.

I just read that the planning leading up to the shooting undermines an insanity plea.

 

[woolfe9999]

Nice coherent logic, nicely phrased.

I just read that the planning leading up to the shooting undermines an insanity plea.

Insanity defenses virtually never succeed in the real world. In fact, they usually aren't even attempted for that very reason. The legal definition of insanity is far narrower than any clinical definition. The odds of this shooter having been legally insane are even less than the odds of him having been schizophrenic. He likely wasn't schizophrenic either, but it's possible.

- wolf

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

It's the 'Tea Party did it' argument, of course. Maybe we need to censor political discourse!

Opposition to the health care law was out of line, and this is a consequence? BS. I don't buy that, do you?

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country."

That kind of discourse, on a daily basis, by very popular widely heard media pundits.

 

[Lanyap]

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country."

That kind of discourse, on a daily basis, by very popular widely heard media pundits.

Here's the entire quote. I don't agree with it but the way the Left is acting about this event opens them up to this type of criticism.

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...That smiling mug shot -- this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yes but that kind of rhetoric is typical.

Lets just say that demagog's dont do so well with self criticism.