Chuck Schumer radicalizes man, man tries to murder SCOTUS justice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 12:47 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: No you weren’t.

Why not?  It's a major news story.  Or do you disagree?

[Vas Deferens]

(06-09-2022, 01:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why not?  It's a major news story.  Or do you disagree?

Just thought it was a trite opening. Think you’re better than that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 01:20 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Just thought it was a trite opening.  Think you’re better than that.

I'll certainly concede that traffic is less than vigorous in this sub-forum.  That being said, I was surprised that such a major event had no thread.  Why would you ascribe a different motive?

[Vas Deferens]

(06-09-2022, 01:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll certainly concede that traffic is less than vigorous in this sub-forum.  That being said, I was surprised that such a major event had no thread.  Why would you ascribe a different motive?

Because the spectrum of ‘mental illness’ is broader than we’d like to admit. We got dumbfucks everywhere. You know that.

Pretty sure all I really care about at this point is term limits and campaign finance reform. Those two in place and I’m fine with whatever plays out.

I’m not going to be exacerbated by current psychopaths trying to rile up their base for internet points. Be it schumer, MTG or any of the other dorks taking money from Israel.

BDS

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2022, 01:47 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I’m not going to be exacerbated by current psychopaths trying to rile up their base for internet points. Be it schumer, MTG or any of the other dorks taking money from Israel.

BDS

I'm an anti-Zionist/pro-Palestine guy, but this feels very much like an anti-Semitic dog whistle to me. Just throwing that out there.

[CJD]

Something Liberals often do that really annoys me is they think modes of action are what defines whether something is right or wrong. I think they do it because liberals have this internal desire to be "fair and balanced" when covering any topic. They have this ridiculous urge to believe the "Extremes" of both political ideologies are exactly the same and, thus, both must be equally condemned.

For example, a liberal will look at a left wing populist like Bernie Sanders and think he's just as "radical" as a "right wing populist" like Tucker Carlson because they use similar modes of action to motivate their base. Conjuring images of "elites" who are conning the middle class etc.

And, aesthetically, they are relatively similar, but that's where the similarities end: at aesthetics. When Bernie talks about "elites," he is talking about the ultra wealthy (and under regulated) corporations that gouge the working class with price hikes just to give their CEOs millions of dollars in bonuses while posting record profits. When Tucker does it, he's often dog whistling about Jews or liberal conspiracies while covering for ultra wealthy corporations, especially the ones that fund him (and Fox News) like the Koch Brothers. The unaired interview with that Dutch historian is a good example of someone calling him out for this.

In a similar vein, the equivocation between what Schumer and Lightfoot have said and what Tucker does on a nightly basis is almost entirely based in their modes of action. They both speak vaguely about the threats to our country and the potential consequences and/or possible outcomes if nothing is done to stop them. They both use militaristic language ("we must fight!" or "A call to arms") to describe what actions must be taken and they both potentially could influence someone to pick up a gun and do something about it.

The major difference between the two groups is that the Schumers and Lightfoots of the world are speaking against things that are actually happening. Republicans are literally trying to strip away people's rights. Women's rights to an abortion, trans people's rights to drugs and/or surgery (and privacy, as we are seeing with this Ohio bill where you can just....accuse an athlete of being trans and then they are in some way obligated to "prove they aren't"), many of them even want to take away gay people's right to get married.

What does Tucker speak against? The white replacement? Where wealthy elites (perhaps referring to Jews like George Soros) are intentionally shipping in immigrants with the intention of turning America brown? He's peddling conspiracy theories with no basis in reality 95% of the time.

Speaking out against oppression and speaking out against imagined oppression should not carry the same weight and how people respond to each should not be compared. If we strip away the important detail of whether the threat described is real, we strip away all relevance and meaning from the topic.

Now, do I believe that this person heard Schumer say that and, solely on that one sentence, decided to take a gun to Kavanaugh's house? No, not really. I think he was an arguably disturbed individual who was suicidal (he called himself in and got himself arrested, mind you) and also deeply moved by the Supreme Court's heinous draft opinion and wanted to do something about it. I'm not saying you should murder court justices that rule (or are thinking about ruling) that taking people's rights away is constitutional. But I am saying that this is different from a person hearing one of Tucker's conspiracy theories and going to shoot a bunch of innocent people based on the color of their skin.

We can condemn both shooters' actions without equivocating them or their motives or the people who speak towards their motives.

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 01:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll certainly concede that traffic is less than vigorous in this sub-forum.  That being said, I was surprised that such a major event had no thread.  Why would you ascribe a different motive?

I'd guess it was more about the thread title. And that's what I was initially thinking too, that the subject line was quite polemic. Presenting "Schumer radicalizes man" as some kind of fact; while of course the plan of that individual might have had nothing to do with anything Schumer, or any other Democrat, had said.
"Tucker radicalizes man, man shoots multiple people in a mall" would have been quite the sensational headline as well, probably critizised by many.

In the end, I didn't really care much about it. But yeah the thread title deserves a raised eyebrow perhaps.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-09-2022, 06:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm an anti-Zionist/pro-Palestine guy, but this feels very much like an anti-Semitic dog whistle to me. Just throwing that out there.

Never understood how being against AIPAC and standing with BDS is marked as 'anti-semitic'.  But, I'll take the note.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 11:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'd guess it was more about the thread title. And that's what I was initially thinking too, that the subject line was quite polemic. Presenting "Schumer radicalizes man" as some kind of fact; while of course the plan of that individual might have had nothing to do with anything Schumer, or any other Democrat, had said.
"Tucker radicalizes man, man shoots multiple people in a mall" would have been quite the sensational headline as well, probably critizised by many.

In the end, I didn't really care much about it. But yeah the thread title deserves a raised eyebrow perhaps.

Oh, it was intentionally inflammatory for the reasons I've already stated.  If we're going to blame the words of some for the actions of others, as the left stumbled over each other to do with Carlson and the Buffalo shooting, then I'm going to throw it right back in their face when the shoe is on the other foot.  As I've stated, numerous times, I loathe hypocrisy.  I don't blame Schumer for this guy any more, or less, than I blame Ticker for the Buffalo shooter.  But I will hold Schumer to his own standards.

So yeah, the thread title was absolutely intentional in its wording.  If some can't see the nuance in that, well that's not something I can control.

[hollodero]

(06-08-2022, 09:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing.  We all have groups we feel more ideologically inclined towards, that's completely normal.  We also tend to maximize the actions of those we disagree with and minimize the actions of those we are in sync with.  The sad fact of the current US climate is that very few people acknowledge this, and even fewer will recognize that some of what they claim to despise is propagated by the very people they support.  In this regard I do not hold the GOP more, or less, responsible than the Dems, but the media certainly does.  Both sides think their guys (used gender neutral) wear the white hat and the other the black, but in reality both sides are wearing varying shades of grey (not 50 shades either).  Until we can hold our own side to our stated standards, and refuse to minimize or excuse them, we'll continue to get this type of result.

I probably should incorporate that viewpoint more intensely. It also seems to me that folks will ignore or even defend anything anyone from their perceived own side does while jumping at anything someone from the bad side does, creating an angels vs. devils picture. There's certainly lots of hypocrisy involved, including my own.
I will add though that false equivalencies are also quite prevalent, and overall I still don't think GOP and Democrats see eye to eye on many nefarious things. I'd rather say Democrats make up lots of ground on the race to the bottom. Sad climate indeed.

(06-08-2022, 09:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Under the Dems own standards Schumer, and others, should be impeached.  We'll see if that happens.  I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Trump wasn't impeached over rabble-rousing stuff like that though. But to be fair, I felt he should have been on multiple occasions, so maybe.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2022, 09:36 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Something Liberals often do that really annoys me is they think modes of action are what defines whether something is right or wrong.  I think they do it because liberals have this internal desire to be "fair and balanced" when covering any topic. They have this ridiculous urge to believe the "Extremes" of both political ideologies are exactly the same and, thus, both must be equally condemned.

For example, a liberal will look at a left wing populist like Bernie Sanders and think he's just as "radical" as a "right wing populist" like Tucker Carlson because they use similar modes of action to motivate their base. Conjuring images of "elites" who are conning the middle class etc.

And, aesthetically, they are relatively similar, but that's where the similarities end: at aesthetics. When Bernie talks about "elites," he is talking about the ultra wealthy (and under regulated) corporations that gouge the working class with price hikes just to give their CEOs millions of dollars in bonuses while posting record profits. When Tucker does it, he's often dog whistling about Jews or liberal conspiracies while covering for ultra wealthy corporations, especially the ones that fund him (and Fox News) like the Koch Brothers. The unaired interview with that Dutch historian is a good example of someone calling him out for this.

In a similar vein, the equivocation between what Schumer and Lightfoot have said and what Tucker does on a nightly basis is almost entirely based in their modes of action. They both speak vaguely about the threats to our country and the potential consequences and/or possible outcomes if nothing is done to stop them. They both use militaristic language ("we must fight!" or "A call to arms") to describe what actions must be taken and they both potentially could influence someone to pick up a gun and do something about it.

The major difference between the two groups is that the Schumers and Lightfoots of the world are speaking against things that are actually happening. Republicans are literally trying to strip away people's rights. Women's rights to an abortion, trans people's rights to drugs and/or surgery (and privacy, as we are seeing with this Ohio bill where you can just....accuse an athlete of being trans and then they are in some way obligated to "prove they aren't"), many of them even want to take away gay people's right to get married.

What does Tucker speak against? The white replacement? Where wealthy elites (perhaps referring to Jews like George Soros) are intentionally shipping in immigrants with the intention of turning America brown? He's peddling conspiracy theories with no basis in reality 95% of the time.

Speaking out against oppression and speaking out against imagined oppression should not carry the same weight and how people respond to each should not be compared. If we strip away the important detail of whether the threat described is real, we strip away all relevance and meaning from the topic.

Now, do I believe that this person heard Schumer say that and, solely on that one sentence, decided to take a gun to Kavanaugh's house? No, not really. I think he was an arguably disturbed individual who was suicidal (he called himself in and got himself arrested, mind you) and also deeply moved by the Supreme Court's heinous draft opinion and wanted to do something about it. I'm not saying you should murder court justices that rule (or are thinking about ruling) that taking people's rights away is constitutional. But I am saying that this is different from a person hearing one of Tucker's conspiracy theories and going to shoot a bunch of innocent people based on the color of their skin.

We can condemn both shooters' actions without equivocating them or their motives or the people who speak towards their motives.

"My biggest fault is I care too much."  Dill already has the market cornered on everything you just wrote btw.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 11:45 AM)hollodero Wrote: I probably should incorporate that viewpoint more intensely.  It also seems to me that folks will ignore or even defend anything anyone from their perceived own side does while jumping at anything someone from the bad side does, creating an angels vs. devils picture. There's certainly lots of hypocrisy involved, including my own.
I will add though that false equivalencies are also quite prevalent, and overall I still don't think GOP and Democrats see eye to eye on many nefarious things. I'd rather say Democrats make up lots of ground on the race to the bottom. Sad climate indeed.

The Dems haven't recently become worse in this regard, it's just much more noticeable now that Trump is gone and they're in power.  I've said for a long time that the worst part about Trump wasn't his own behavior, it's what he pulled out of others.  The Dems have easily been this bad since 2016, but now you don't have Trump's behavior relegating there's to background noise.  As for holding their own side accountable, you're correct.  Very few people will level any criticism at "their side."  We see it here all the time

Quote:Trump wasn't impeached over rabble-rousing stuff like that though. But to be fair, I felt he should have been on multiple occasions, so maybe.

His second impeachment was precisely for that.

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Dems haven't recently become worse in this regard, it's just much more noticeable now that Trump is gone and they're in power.  I've said for a long time that the worst part about Trump wasn't his own behavior, it's what he pulled out of others.  The Dems have easily been this bad since 2016, but now you don't have Trump's behavior relegating there's to background noise.

That's very well possible. Like most people from my place, I was just aghast about Trump and didn't care much about Dems really.

(06-09-2022, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: His second impeachment was precisely for that.

Ah, interesting. But I'd say the deeds of Trump leading to and during the Capitol storm were a bit more severe than Schumer's words. For example Trump didn't just talk Schumer style, he additionally made the specific proposal to go to the Capitol, he waited for hours before making a half hearted attempt to stop the violence occurring there, and he told blatant lies about a stolen election before. Schumer, by all means, did not exactly make up stuff to incite people and he has not endorsed any actual attempt of violence. I see that as different still, at least not as being precisely the same.

Imho, instances maybe a bit more akin would be Trump claiming that liberal doctors kill new-born babies or that Hillary is a criminal desserving jail time and how second amendment people could do something about her or (quite many more) things like that. Difference being that no one at the time reportedly attempted self-justice on doctors or Hillary.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 12:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's very well possible. Like most people from my place, I was just aghast about Trump and didn't care much about Dems really.

It is definitely my perception.  Trump was interesting in that many who decried his behavior began to engage in similar, if not as egregious behavior.  See Pelosi ripping up is SotU speech.  Also Trump called out journalists for doing a bad job, they responded, in so small numbers, by doing even worse.

Quote:Ah, interesting. But I'd say the deeds of Trump leading to and during the Capitol storm were a bit more severe than Schumer's words. For example Trump didn't just talk Schumer style, he additionally made the specific proposal to go to the Capitol, he waited for hours before making a half hearted attempt to stop the violence occurring there, and he told blatant lies about a stolen election before. Schumer, by all means, did not exactly make up stuff to incite people and he has not endorsed any actual attempt of violence. I see that as different still, at least not as being precisely the same.

I don't equate them directly either.  What Trump did was far worse.  That being said, I still think what Schumer did was reprehensible and worthy of severe sanction.  Now even more so.

Quote:Imho, instances maybe a bit more akin would be Trump claiming that liberal doctors kill new-born babies or that Hillary is a criminal desserving jail time and how second amendment people could do something about her or (quite many more) things like that. Difference being that no one at the time reportedly attempted self-justice on doctors or Hillary.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if Schumer didn't mention two justices specifically by name.  But he did, so I don't see these as apt comparisons.  Lastly, Hillary does deserve to be in jail, but you could probably say that for a significant number of politicians at the national level.

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is definitely my perception.  Trump was interesting in that many who decried his behavior began to engage in similar, if not as egregious behavior.  See Pelosi ripping up is SotU speech.  Also Trump called out journalists for doing a bad job, they responded, in so small numbers, by doing even worse.

I sure found it weird that people celebrated Pelosi for that stunt that to me rather resembled a catch-up move on said race to the bottom. Agreed, what was that.
As for journalists, I think Trump did more than just calling them out for a bad job, that reads like downplaying it a little. He called them an enemy of the people, he called accurate reporting fake news, he celebrated the guy that bodyslammed a reporter and so on and so forth. Quite some hostile and abusive behaviour against journalists arguably being a result of that.

(06-09-2022, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't equate them directly either.  What Trump did was far worse.  That being said, I still think what Schumer did was reprehensible and worthy of severe sanction.  Now even more so.

Fair enough. I just jumped at the word precisely.

(06-09-2022, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would be more inclined to agree with you if Schumer didn't mention two justices specifically by name.  But he did, so I don't see these as apt comparisons.  Lastly, Hillary does deserve to be in jail, but you could probably say that for a significant number of politicians at the national level.

There isn't a perfectly apt example I could think of. Trump mentioned Kaepernick by name, but it's not the same for it was more harmless possibly. He mentioned Joe Scarborough by name when repeadedly implying he murdered someone, but he did not predict any action that will now follow. Many instances have similarities while none is the same, I'd just argue in the overall picture Trump imho did many things that can be seen as somewhat similar to Schumer's rhetorics here, eg. when it comes to journalists as well, and with increased frequency.

As for Hillary, as far as I can tell she's at least as much 'exonerated' as Trump was over Russia, eg. she was declared not guilty after an admittedly weird FBI investigation and wasn't found guilty on anything, and I don't know whether she really is to be seen as a criminal. I don't think there's any justification for Trump creating a lock her up chant.

[BigPapaKain]

I mean if you're looking for someone to defend Schumer or this nut job, I doubt you'll find that person here.

[NATI BENGALS]

So Schumer warning them that forcing women to birth babies they don’t want will have consequences is what radicalized this man?

I call that pointing out the obvious

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 02:21 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I mean if you're looking for someone to defend Schumer or this nut job, I doubt you'll find that person here.

That was true, until...

(06-09-2022, 05:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So Schumer warning them that forcing women to birth babies they don’t want will have consequences is what radicalized this man?

I call that pointing out the obvious

Seriously perfect timing.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-09-2022, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That was true, until...


Seriously perfect timing.

Oof. Well **** me for having faith in posters here.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-09-2022, 05:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So Schumer warning them that forcing women to birth babies they don’t want will have consequences is what radicalized this man?

I call that pointing out the obvious

Except, he didn't say those words at all. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/videos/clip-resurfaces-of-schumer-telling-kavanaugh-hell-pay-the-price-for-roe/vi-AAYeuSt