The Dangers of "Responsible" Discourse

[fertile1]

"Responsible" Discourse: A Dangerous Step in the Wrong Direction

The recent tragedy in Tucson has stimulated concern in certain quarters about the need to tone down/soften/mute political rhetoric. Insofar as this is done in the interest of promoting expression which is civil and intelligent rather than rabid and hysterical, I'm in.

An important problem arises, however, when the plea for civility is advanced not for its own sake and value but rather as a coddling accommodation to the mentally deranged. If the moment ever comes when I craft a single sentence with concern for how it will be taken by those who are retarded in one way or another, that will be my last writing experience, and I'll have to figure out another way to line my coffers.

Writers have several tools in their skill sets. Among the most valuable are overstatement/hyperbole/exaggeration, metaphor, and simile. To suggest that a writer abandon any or all of these because of the possibility that there are some out there who are incapable of ingesting anything other than literal (rhymes with liberal) language is not only ridiculous but dangerous.

Adopting as the ultimate value economic policies that posit comforting the poor at the expense of the productive is bad enough. Advocating an analogous dumbing down of expression is intolerable.

The law has long recognized that the defective tail should not wag the otherwise healthy dog. A builder is not required to use sponge rather than concrete because the former would be easier on an eggshell skull.

And yet millions of taxpayer dollars are spent designing and building kneeling buses even though only a tiny fraction of the traveling population needs them. I would think the disabled would be less embarrassed if they were collected in special vans although there are undoubtedly those of the view that such a common sense approach smacks of segregation and discrimination.

The ultimate violation of reason and a writer's (even a dead one's) rights is the suggestion that the word "nigger" be changed in some of Mark Twain's writings. Anyone with the faintest tendency to stick up for private property, in this case copyright, will fight this one to the finish if only on the ground that the change deprives students of learning how language has evolved through the years.

Unfettered language is capable of great power and beauty. Sometimes a bit of zest is needed to get a job done. For example, OS includes an accomplished writer who deals with important subjects in a writing style that is bland enough to satisfy all of those who are currently calling for Sarah Palin's blood. His readership is even smaller than mine.

Politicians and their advisors would be lost without the power to provoke. To urge them to write with rubbers to protect the disabled would be ruinous.

The way to deal with lunatic assassins is not to make sure that they hear nothing but media lullabies, but rather to make them understand they will be faced with the firm and swift hand of the law should they misbehave. Taking reasonable personal safety precautions at public events attended by controversial candidates would also be a good idea.

[JDC]

This is one of the best brief essays on freedom of speech in a free society that I've ever read.
Not just in here, but anywhere.

I have many thoughts on different aspects of the tragic, shocking, sickening, disturbing and inexusable events in Tucson but I can't imagine a better response to the "Civil Discourse" angle.

Thank You!

[thinkaboutit]

I agree 100%. Who wrote this? This essay should simply be used as a direct rebuttal and people directed to it whenever applicable. Thanks for sharing.

[tim.ned@gmail.com]

I agree as well and always appreciate this posters words of wisdom.

[thinkaboutit]

I guess fertile1 is Mr. Osmond then. I will have to read your other posts..they look interesting.

[NRAED]

The sad fact is that the MSM will blame the right, companies that manufacture guns sporting goods stores that sell guns and anything related. The MSM and the left will simply overlook the fact that this clown is a mental case and although not all together there certainly knew exactly what he was doing. This guy planned this assassination and should pay with his life. A nine year old little girl was murdered along with five other innocent people. A woman who was elected to public service was also gunned down for reasons that escape me.
I have always been right of center and I am some times extremely vocal about my opposition to the left. Would I murder a person because their opinions oppose mine?, the answer is hell no. We do not live in a third world country where this type of behavior is common place. I spent thirty eight years of my life in law enforcement protecting people from those who would do them harm and people like this guy infuriate me, he is just another home grown terrorist and hopefully will be treated as such.

[thinkaboutit]

NRAED, why do you characterize this individual as beng a "home grown terrorist"? I haven't read any information as of yet that would warrant that depiction. Mass murderer? Certainly...but terrorist? While terrorist acts and goals have most often been to kill tens to hundreds of people, it isn't the ends to the means. So, at this point in time, I just don't think there is any evidence to suggest this was a terrorist act in of itself. DC Sniper? That would fall under terrorism...this guy...this would be like the Columbine High School massacre in my opinion. You have a lot of law enforcement experience so maybe you can explain why this would fall under the umbrella of terrorism, that I am missing.

[NRAED]

Any body who terrorizes a group of people by shooting stabbing killing or whatever in my estimation is a terrorist. Ask yourself, why does a person do something like this? I will answer it for you, it is to terrorize kill or maim as many people as he can. Didn't he strike terror into the hearts of all of the people gathered. Terrorist one who terrorizes, plain and simple. This idiot knew he would be caught or killed just like all of the Jihadist's.
That my friend is why I label him a terrorist.

I want to ask you have you ever been shot at?, if the answer is no then you really have not experienced terror.

[thinkaboutit]

Any body who terrorizes a group of people by shooting stabbing killing or whatever in my estimation is a terrorist.

So you are equating all criminals that shoot, stab or whatever to a terrorist. Ok.

Ask yourself, why does a person do something like this? I will answer it for you, it is to terrorize kill or maim as many people as he can. Didn't he strike terror into the hearts of all of the people gathered.

I will go back to the concept that terrorists killing others is not the ends to the means but in fact, the deaths they cause are for the sole purpose of affecting others in a larger capacity.

Terrorist one who terrorizes, plain and simple.

I think you have expanded the definition of what a terrorist is to where it has lost it's meaning.

This idiot knew he would be caught or killed just like all of the Jihadist's.

So now he is more than just a terrorist, he is a islamically religious motivated terrorist by your standard?

I want to ask you have you ever been shot at?, if the answer is no then you really have not experienced terror.

What about being stabbed? You said stabbed earlier. How about a animal or shark attack? How about falling from a high place?

[thinkaboutit]

.....continued. Or what about losing a child in a crowded enviroment and thinking somebody has taken them...there are all kinds of things that can happen to a person that brings out an emotion of terror, not just being shot.

However, that really isn't the disagreement here...the disagreement is WHAT is a terrorist and does this guy's actions, based on the facts known at this time, are terrorism. If so, then I would argue that the definition has changed and the number of terrorists in America (prisons) has thus expanded greatly.

[thinkaboutit]

Heck...he already pre-empted the whole terrorist argument:

“If I define terrorist than a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. I define terrorist. Thus, a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is a Ad hominem, You call me a terrorist. ” - Jared Lee Loughner

Sounds like to me that he is stating that his actions are not as a political weapon. So, at this time, with the info available, I would say he isn't a terrorist and more specifcally not a Jihadist.

My point being basically that I think it is incorrect to take a specific classification of actions that are designed to affect a larger secondary group for idelogical or religious reasons by direct action towards a smaller subset group and expand it to any individual that attempts or commits murder or physcial harm. People in Detroit shooting others for their wallets actually just want the money and don't really care how it affects the larger population of people walking around with wallets.

[NRAED]

I did not say he was an Islamist I compared him to a Jihadist who cares little about who he kills or being killed himself. This man was angry at a politician and decided to try and intimidate all who believed as she did. I am angry at politicians all of the time I do not have any intention of harming them I just vote against them when it comes election time.
The dictionary defines terrorism as the use of terror as a means of coercion. I think that covers it.
Please do not put words in my mouth. You can call this idiot anything you want in my mind he is a home grown terrorist just like the killer at Fort Hood or Timothy Mc Vey of Oklahoma City infamy.

[Rose A]

I urge those of you who find this essay sufficient to combat concerns about a link between the right's rhetoric and violent acts of this kind to please please go to -- even just this once -- http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign ... meline.org. There is a lot of reading....20 pages worth, but you can just peruse through the "incidences". Then if you still feel the same, that there are only unfounded, knee-jerk and unfair accusations and recriminations, so be it. But unless you can refute with similar evidence, how can you not give some thought, open-minded, to the possibility that there is something to be critical of, and many complaints are well founded.
Seriously, read this and learn where some of the concerns come from. It is not just about the written word with all due respect to the author of the essay.

[thinkaboutit]

I did not say he was an Islamist I compared him to a Jihadist who cares little about who he kills or being killed himself.

I guess you are redefining what a Jihadist is as well. I will have to disagree with you here on your new definition because while not all terrorists are muslim, all Jihadist's would have to be.

This man was angry at a politician and decided to try and intimidate all who believed as she did.

I have seen zero evidence to support your statement I have highlighted in bold. IT may end up being the case but at this time there is no evidence of this.

I am angry at politicians all of the time I do not have any intention of harming them I just vote against them when it comes election time.

That's great, don't know what that has to do with the present debate though.

The dictionary defines terrorism as the use of terror as a means of coercion. I think that covers it.

I thought a terrorist was any person that kills or maims people with a gun, knife or "whatever"? That's how you redefined what a terrorist was. Even with this defintion which matches mine more than yours, there is no evidence at this time.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

All I have done is discuss YOUR words. If you want to clarify your original statements, do so.

You can call this idiot anything you want in my mind he is a home grown terrorist just like the killer at Fort Hood or Timothy Mc Vey of Oklahoma City infamy.

Well, anybody can call anybody whatever they want but that doesn't make it true nor does it make credible the redefinition of words.

[thinkaboutit]

I urge those of you who find this essay sufficient to combat concerns about a link between the right's rhetoric and violent acts of this kind to please please go to -- even just this once -- http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign ... meline.org. There is a lot of reading....20 pages worth, but you can just peruse through the "incidences". Then if you still feel the same, that there are only unfounded, knee-jerk and unfair accusations and recriminations, so be it. But unless you can refute with similar evidence, how can you not give some thought, open-minded, to the possibility that there is something to be critical of, and many complaints are well founded.
Seriously, read this and learn where some of the concerns come from. It is not just about the written word with all due respect to the author of the essay.

Rose, I will go and read it when I have time. For the sake of argument, what if there is a link? Are you telling me that the %99.99999999 of the population needs to sanitize all words used in order to eliminate the irrational inference from %0.1111111 of the population that are crazy?

EDIT - actually I can't read from your link...404 error.