Restricting Violent Speech

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

I refer to the time that I have a living memory of, and regarding America, that started with the Carter era. The Vietnam era and Watergate I necessarily only can form an opinion on on the basis of historic reports and books. I was too young. And I stick to it, not during Carter, not during Reagan and not during Bush senior and Clinton the rehtorics had been so hostile and hurting and martial and aggressive - especially from he right. During the seocnd Bush, it already increased pace, and with the Republicans having lost elections to Obama it climaxed, sometimes spiking as high as that in several european countries the person saying certain remarks would be sued at court for libel, slander and character-assassination. That is the differencxe between most European coutn ries, and America: in America, it seems everything gets excused as "freedom". But from our perspective, it is pure anarchy, and an abandoning of all rules, standards and manners. And this is one of the reasons, as well as a consequence, for the deep division that is widening in American society. And as I see it, it is also a symptom between the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and the elected and tzhe electorate. OLr as I repeatedly have said in pastd ebates: the difference between what the USA was meant to be by its founding myths, and what in the rwlity and present it actually is. And the present America I do not see being adequately described by the declaration of independence and the constittuion and the amendements. These are the echoes of once promising, now utopic dreams about how it was meant to be. The real manifestation is something very different.

I very much like the utopian idea of what America was meant to be, and the founding myths and the documents I referred to above. How can I be "anti-American" then when I criticise what America actually is and how much very different from these historic itentions it is and behaves...? I also say that I love Germany for the historic merits it has added to world culture, to music, arts, philosphy, legal ideas, technology and ingeneering, science - before the Nazis came and teampled on it. How can I be anti-German then when I criticise Germany for what it is today, and how it allows to degenerate and detoriate and destroy itself for various reasons, and the EU?

In the end, these differences betwqeen how it once was or was meant to be, and how it actually is - are tragic, and a great loss. For America. For Germany. And for all the world. But so is history: rise, blossoming, climax, and fall. So is nature as well.

[tater]

You're wrong.

I lived through that same period. There is no difference. None. Perhaps you perceive this based on what is being fed to you outside the US, but I've actually participated in every election since Carter (and watched those before with some interest).

It's not worse. It's just not.

BTW, your comments about propriety and manners are actually pretty funny to me. Point of information for you. The US Congress uses a modification of Robert's Rules of Order. We learn this in school, and operate clubs, student government, and everything else based upon this. Watch the UK Parliament some time. It's a madhouse and seems incredibly uncivil to Americans with all the shouting and lack of order.

Your picture of American democracy is seriously screwy compared to those of us who actually participate in it. I'd not condescend to tell you about the way German democracy works, you'd do well to do likewise, you are completely out of your depth.

[Armistead]

Dang, maybe we need to bring back the days of our early leaders..didn't like what someone said...have a duel..if we're lucky they would shoot each other {oops, did I say shoot.} The speech of today is calm compared to our early history. Just read some old newspaper ads late 1700's to 1900's.
For the most part we only had a few decades where speech was calm. Certainly before the 80's violent hate speech was more agressive. It calmed somewhat until Clinton and been going sense, but it certainly hasn't been violent to any degree as in times past.

Each side has it's own hate propaganda. Politicians know the majority of Americans don't keep up and lack education regarding politics, so they spew propaganda.

It really just shows how weak the american mindset is, that so many fall for it.

[gimpy117]

but there is a difference between name calling like slander, and references to violence

[tater]

Skybird above claimed Palin had made "vicious" comments in the past. What were they? I wants quotes so I know what he considers "vicious."

Or did he merely READ that she has said vicious things? Perhaps it is simply "widely known" that she has... but no examples? Myself, I like data.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

but there is a difference between name calling like slander, and references to violence

Military metaphors are normal in politics (and football, for that matter). Suborning a crime is different, but has a pretty high bar.

The sanctity of freedom of expression (particularly political expression) is something all patriotic Americans regardless of party agree on. (and yeah, I'd attack so-called conservatives against flag-burning for being un-American if they wish to curtain that political expression (even if I wanna punch flag-burners, personally, it's their right to do so).

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

but there is a difference between name calling like slander, and references to violence

But who is advocating violence?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by tater

Myself, I like data.

Who doesn't like Data? Data is awesome...

[tater]

I was watching music vids, and found one by Fiona Apple's sister, and listened to it. The "related" videos then had her singing duets with Brent Spiner. Weird. I'll post the link in the music thread, it was pretty surprising.

[Oberon]

I must admit, I don't recall there being quite as many flame wars back in the Bush era, not over politics anyway, the flame wars back then were about Islam.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I must admit, I don't recall there being quite as much flame wars back in the Bush era, not over politics anyway, the flame wars back then were about Islam.

A few other forums I frequent were wall-to-wall Bush bashing, starting with the bogus claim he "stole" the election. The anti-Clinton campo had a substantial branch that was entirely irrational as well. Ditto the feelings towards Reagan, etc. At least Carter was actually a demonstrably crappy President

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by tater

A few other forums I frequent were wall-to-wall Bush bashing, starting with the bogus claim he "stole" the election. The anti-Clinton campo had a substantial branch that was entirely irrational as well. Ditto the feelings towards Reagan, etc. At least Carter was actually a demonstrably crappy President

Oh aye, I got the circular emails as well, being a bit more left leaning than I am right, I even have a poster with some of his classic quotes on it. I was just referring to this corner of the internet...but then again, there are too many variables to be definite, including a jump in user numbers following the release of Silent Hunter III and its follow ons.
Reagan and Carter are a little before my time...well...before the time I was aware of politics as a whole, so I can't judge on that, and I don't recall much said about the Clinton era...perhaps because the internet was still getting off the ground back then and the anti-Clinton camp had its strongest voice in the US.

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

Your picture of American democracy is seriously screwy compared to those of us who actually participate in it. I'd not condescend to tell you about the way German democracy works, you'd do well to do likewise, you are completely out of your depth.

This ^

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I must admit, I don't recall there being quite as many flame wars back in the Bush era, not over politics anyway, the flame wars back then were about Islam.

I remember them. You are right in that there was a lot of crap about Islam, and it resulted in a guy that I really admire and respect pretty much leaving the forum, but there was a whole lot of political stuff back in the '02-'06 time frame. In fact, that is when it really started to hit the fan around here. From my arrival to the beginning of 2002, GT was a very different place.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by August

And the right is just as guilty of it.

I'd rather have a reasonable discussion instead of political posturing so why don't you go back to the Giffords thread and continue arguing with the other troll.

Why go to another thread?, then it is better that he takes the day off