Restricting Violent Speech

Sailor Steve · 01-13-11, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castout

US politics have degenerated from graceful and respectful to ugly and insulting and embarrassing since Obama came to office.

Did you somehow manage to miss this entire page? US politics has never been "graceful and respectful", and is in fact much milder that it was in the past.

Ducimus · 01-13-11, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Did you somehow manage to miss this entire page? US politics has never been "graceful and respectful",

Agree.

Quote:

and is in fact much milder that it was in the past.

Disagree. Been way too much rhetoric, slander, acqusations, and other misc BS over the last couple years. If not in quantity, certainly in the amount of emotion behind them.

Sailor Steve · 01-13-11, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Disagree. Been way too much rhetoric, slander, acqusations, and other misc BS over the last couple years. If not in quantity, certainly in the amount of emotion behind them.

True, but since the thread is about restricting such speech, I think it's a point that no newspaper today would ever print the kinds of things they did then.

Castout · 01-13-11, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Did you somehow manage to miss this entire page? US politics has never been "graceful and respectful", and is in fact much milder that it was in the past.

To that I simply say I disagree

As stated by Ducimus too

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Disagree. Been way too much rhetoric, slander, acqusations, and other misc BS over the last couple years. If not in quantity, certainly in the amount of emotion behind them.

Sailor Steve · 01-13-11, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castout

To that I simply say I disagree

As stated by Ducimus too

He disagreed with my contention that it is not as bad now. If you truly think it was ever nice and respectful, you need to watch all the videos and read up on the campaign of 1800. And 1828. And 1860. And 1864.

Even the argument over who stole what in 2000 is predated by the election of 1888.
http://www.historycooperative.org/cg...2/summers.html

Ducimus may be right in his contention that it's just as bad now (and I don't deny that it is bad), but this is certainly nothing new. It was never nice, and never pretty.

Castout · 01-13-11, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

He disagreed with my contention that it is not as bad now. If you truly think it was ever nice and respectful, you need to watch all the videos and read up on the campaign of 1800. And 1828. And 1860. And 1864.

Even the argument over who stole what in 2000 is predated by the election of 1888.
http://www.historycooperative.org/cg...2/summers.html

Ducimus may be right in his contention that it's just as bad now (and I don't deny that it is bad), but this is certainly nothing new. It was never nice, and never pretty.

Aye I've now read some 'ugly' tactics in the articles I must have missed them when skimming it earlier. It sounded ugly then in the 1800s but post 1950 seemed to be respectful enough . . . until lately. When you see a very ugly person a substantially less ugly person could be thought of being quite appealing when in fact that person is not by all standard handsome or pretty.

Sailor Steve · 01-14-11, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castout

...post 1950 seemed to be respectful enough...

A good enough point. I do vaguely remember the election of 1960, but the arguments I heard were all from individuals, and didn't seem to be on the national scale. You could be right - there may have been a lull in there.

@ August: You're point about the internet and its affects is well made.

August · 01-13-11, 11:43 PM

Therein lies the difference between now and then I think. The present concern is over quality and it's obvious that there is much more restraint now than back in the day, but it could easily be that sheer quantity now has a far greater effect.

After all, mudslinging in previous times was a much more localized affair. No matter how bad the attack it was only seen by it's local subscribers and by just a few people in other cities sometimes months later. Nowadays anyone with access to the internet can instantly reach far more people than the most popular newspaper ever could with the presses running day and night.

mookiemookie · 01-14-11, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Nowadays anyone with access to the internet can instantly reach far more people than the most popular newspaper ever could with the presses running day and night.

Very good point. And with the internet, you get completely unfiltered and unedited comments from across the political and intellectual (some would say they're related

) spectrum. The democratization of mass communication can be a good thing, but then again it can also product a screwy signal to noise ratio.

August · 01-14-11, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Very good point. And with the internet, you get completely unfiltered and unedited comments from across the political and intellectual (some would say they're related

) spectrum. The democratization of mass communication can be a good thing, but then again it can also product a screwy signal to noise ratio.

Yep. It's one of the things we as a society still need to work out. The internet is a great thing but we have not yet learned how to tune out the noise or insulate ourselves from the propaganda of others.

tater · 01-14-11, 01:15 PM

People are welcome to disagree and believe that politics has become more virulent of late, but to believe this is entirely irrational as it is contradicted by reality.

I'd not try and "rank" political discourse, but it is clear that it is in the same ballpark it has always been in at the very least, and to my ear, has the feel of being LESS virulent (unless you irrationally find suggestions that rape would be legal, or kids would be stuck on pikes as LESS virulent).

It might be fair to make the caveat that you talk only about "modern" history, but again, history gives the lie to this as well. I remember 8 years of wishing Bush dead by groups that are considered mainstream (all the dem candidates went to a Kos meeting, and that site has wished death on many republicans, many times). Before that, there were loons on the right who accused the Clintons of being involved in murders (that aid who offed himself). For Bush Sr. there were claims of black helicopters, and other insanity. Reagan? I was in college during Reagan, and the standard attitude towards him was VERY hateful, to say the least. Many times people bemoaned the lack of success when he was shot.

Anyone who claims politics has become more nasty needs to demonstrate which period was so much better. Remember by the time to get back to the 60s, you start hitting "political machines" (mostly democratic as far as I can tell, but some on both sides to be sure) that were in fact doing things that were clearly illegal as SOP. Truman was the product of such a machine, as was virtually everyone before him. So during those periods the threat of violence or reprisal was totally on the table all the time.

Penguin · 01-14-11, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Yep. It's one of the things we as a society still need to work out. The internet is a great thing but we have not yet learned how to tune out the noise or insulate ourselves from the propaganda of others.

We still haven't figured this out with television...

01-13-11, 11:43 PM	#8
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,215 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Therein lies the difference between now and then I think. The present concern is over quality and it's obvious that there is much more restraint now than back in the day, but it could easily be that sheer quantity now has a far greater effect. After all, mudslinging in previous times was a much more localized affair. No matter how bad the attack it was only seen by it's local subscribers and by just a few people in other cities sometimes months later. Nowadays anyone with access to the internet can instantly reach far more people than the most popular newspaper ever could with the presses running day and night. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

01-14-11, 01:15 PM	#11
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	People are welcome to disagree and believe that politics has become more virulent of late, but to believe this is entirely irrational as it is contradicted by reality. I'd not try and "rank" political discourse, but it is clear that it is in the same ballpark it has always been in at the very least, and to my ear, has the feel of being LESS virulent (unless you irrationally find suggestions that rape would be legal, or kids would be stuck on pikes as LESS virulent). It might be fair to make the caveat that you talk only about "modern" history, but again, history gives the lie to this as well. I remember 8 years of wishing Bush dead by groups that are considered mainstream (all the dem candidates went to a Kos meeting, and that site has wished death on many republicans, many times). Before that, there were loons on the right who accused the Clintons of being involved in murders (that aid who offed himself). For Bush Sr. there were claims of black helicopters, and other insanity. Reagan? I was in college during Reagan, and the standard attitude towards him was VERY hateful, to say the least. Many times people bemoaned the lack of success when he was shot. Anyone who claims politics has become more nasty needs to demonstrate which period was so much better. Remember by the time to get back to the 60s, you start hitting "political machines" (mostly democratic as far as I can tell, but some on both sides to be sure) that were in fact doing things that were clearly illegal as SOP. Truman was the product of such a machine, as was virtually everyone before him. So during those periods the threat of violence or reprisal was totally on the table all the time.