In this thread i want to see what are your opinions on Jared Lee Loughner, and also on the way politics are being discussed in the US, and if the two are related and to what extent. So, Jared was a nutcase, we all know that. And we know this is the main explanation for him doing what he did. Three years ago, Loughner had been at a Giffords rally, and got to ask her a question: -What is Government, if words have no meaning? She didn't know what to say, and Loughner told his friends he was angry at her.(click here for more) So, yeah, we might have motive there, and there is no indication that he needed Palin's crosshairs to feel motivated. I am not claiming direct influence. But i find that question interesting.It is the exact question with which he ends his youtube video. Watch that video, and if you want, his channel. There are three things i can say from that: 1-He is a complete nut. 2-He has right wing ideology (Government wants to control you, go back to the gold standard, Constitution is under attack, let's have a revolution, etc) 3-He is probably an atheist (i do agree with him on how stupid of the military to give you a bible) So that is his mindset. Now, if you have good knowledge of the way the right is propagating this ideology, the same ideology i described in point 2, do you not think it is very likely that it helped Loughner make his final decision?
I'm sure all the reinforcement from the mainstream right wing media have done in context of supporting violence (well not so much, it's just their terminology for it is intertwined with war and 'fighting') has reinforced his decision in doing it. I don't think it has a direct influence, but it's impossible to deny that it had even a little bit to do with it. The things that did affect his decisions? That he's nuts and the conspiracies that he believed definitely did not help.
Then we agree. Also, when i talk about the political rhetoric, i am not calling for any kind of censorship. Just that politicians and people in the media should have some common sense, and think about if what they're saying might actually be a tad too much.
I get sort of frightened when I hear the violent rhetoric, not gonna lie, and I don't even live in America. The problem that lies with this sort of violent rhetoric like 'take out', 'get rid of', and all this gun talk and practicing the second amendment thing is that it seems intimidating more than it has to be. It's funny cause they're talking all about the second amendment and using their guns and a lot of the tea party folk have signs saying 'I didn't bring a gun... this time', this train of thought of 'if I don't get my way in the ballot box, I'll start shooting' is dangerous and not constructive; all this talk is going against what they perceive they're fighting for (freedom). It shows a base contempt for democracy and the electoral process
Well, i didn't mean for this thread to die with me sounding like a perv, lol. Hey Natewlie, i hope you understand that all i meant was that i was in complete agreement with your post.
His ideas are shockingly mind boggling, to say the least. I realized that he was basing his rhetoric on stuff you would learn from any oratory class, such as debate or whatever. His interpretation of language control is too singular, not everyone thinks the way he thinks thank the beautiful Goddesses out there.
