US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot, Six Die

[PanzerJaeger]

So even though the gunman was a lone loon, he was not acting in a vacuum.

Is there any evidence of this?

Watch the video below. Consider that this woman was shortly after shot through the head. Decide whether or not you want to continue to treat this discussion as a ridiculous, manufactured piece of political theater generated by the weak-minded opportunism of Teh Evil Lefties.

The shooting was a tragedy. The reaction has been a ridiculous, manufactured piece of political theater generated by the weak-minded opportunism of the Left.

There is not much that can be said about Giffords' situation other than expressions of hope for her recovery, so the conversation will naturally revolve around the political spectacle created by the Left.

[HoreTore]

No Hore Tore, you and ACIN pulled a Godwin and tried to tie Hitler to the Right. My point is that the American Right is NOT related to the European Right, as we have very different definitions. We were talking about the American Right, and if you look at the definitions of Right and Left in America, Hitler and Stalin were both far Left. You Euroweiners can call him whatever you want in you own little continent, but to start applying your definitions on a discussion of American Right and Left is total BS. They are completely different things.

I suggest you re-read the thread.

[Strike For The South]

Mr. Intellectual doesn't know what words mean? Couldn't be...
I do not have a mistrust of PhDs, I am merely not willing to give the argument of one with a PhD anymore consideration than that of someone without a PhD. Not having your love affair with professors is not the same as deeply mistrusting them. Maybe if you have read that 'daunting wall of text'... Forgive me that my thoughts cannot be summed up in four syllables...

Well that's your loss, That's like saying "My doctor diagnosed me but grandma says it's cancer" I don't know what to say other than If you get sick you see an MD, if you need representaion you get a JD why are all other fields of study invalid to you?

"Daunting wall of text"? Are we being anti intellectual now Striko Baggins? I hate to say it Strike, but I think you are really guilty of just plain old not reading people's posts and then assuming you know what they said. (as you have proven in many other threads) If you have an aversion to reading, then why bother responding and making a fool out of yourself?

Most of your posts are the same amount of recationary conservativism sprinkled with a bit of shoddy history. I fill in the holes where I see fit.

Tell me Strike, if having a PhD means not being wrong, then how is it that there are tons of disagreements amongst scholars, and often tens of different positions (with hundreds of sub-positions)? Assuming that EVERYONE is not equally as right, that means that all but one of these positions (and therefore thousands of professors) are wrong, despite all the scrutiny, yada, yada, yada. Do you know what all that scrutiny does? It makes them better able to form an argument, which is NOT the same thing as being right.

Yes you can disagree with a someone who has a PhD and of course these people can be wrong but don't assume for a second that there is not merit in what they are talking about, and unless you can back your asseritions with credible evidence...shut your damn mouth freaking whipersnappers

I simply ask one backs ones assertions with primary and secondary sources. Scrutiny causes one to revaulate ones positions.

What that means is that just like in the real world, you get some people who know what they are talking about and some people who don't, but unlike larger society, they all know how to support their positions (no matter how right or wrong) well.
I read an excerpt from a really good book (written by a professor) last semester that said that most of the superstition, mystical beliefs, and false science in the "Dark Ages" was the result of a top-down effect, and originated in Universities. At times PhD bearing people have been the light of reason, and at other times they have been the dark side of humanity (I am thinking about Eugenics in the thirties and forties, as well as psychology in the forties and fifties). Just like other groups of people, they can be very right, and very wrong. It depends largely on who is funding/sponsoring/influencing them and their research, and where their allegiances lie. Just like other people, they are human, and are not free from corrupt influence.
I have nothing against professors, but I have something against the blind worship of them. I know many people with PhDs who I have a great deal of respect for, and consider amongst the smartest, most reasonable people whom I know. Unfortunately I know other who command far less respect.

Ok that's all fine and dandy but you are arguing with someone not in the room.

[Lemur]

Is there any evidence of this?

Excuse me, are you seriously asking if I can prove that an individual with a family, classmates and online activites was not acting in a vacuum? Reconsider this question and try again, please. Also see the comments by a person with a relevant PhD and job experience in this field:

"We know the manifestation of mental illness is affected by cultural factors," Dr. Swartz said. "One's cultural context does effect people's thinking and particularly their delusions. It gives some content and shape to their delusions. While we don't know whether there was a specific relationship between the political climate that he was exposed to and his thinking, it's a reasonable line of inquiry to explore."

Asked whether Loughner's mental illness invalidated questions as to whether his behavior might have been partly caused by the political climate or by violent rhetoric and imagery, Dr. Swartz said it shouldn't.

"Studying the cultural influences on people's delusions or persecutory thinking, and looking at different aspects of culture and how they effect people's behavior, is a legitmate area of inquiry," Dr. Swartz said.

The reaction has been a ridiculous, manufactured piece of political theater generated by the weak-minded opportunism of the Left.

If you're all done posturing for effect, I'd love to, you know, hear what you actually think.

[Vuk]

Well that's your loss, That's like saying "My doctor diagnosed me but grandma says it's cancer" I don't know what to say other than If you get sick you see an MD, if you need representaion you get a JD why are all other fields of study invalid to you?



Most of your posts are the same amount of recationary conservativism sprinkled with a bit of shoddy history. I fill in the holes where I see fit.





I simply ask one backs ones assertions with primary and secondary sources. Scrutiny causes one to revaulate ones positions.





Ok that's all fine and dandy but you are arguing with someone not in the room.

A: I have had doctors diagnose me incorrectly, and consulted other professionals who ended up diagnosing me correctly, so I am skeptical even of doctors. I had had Strep Throat before, and he told me that I did not have it, even though I recognized the white bacteria in the back of my mouth. His quick bacteria test did not find it, so I went weeks without medication until I got a second opinion, and had to argue for several minutes with a nurse to get the 24 hour test, and finally get my darned medication. The second test ended up showing that I did indeed have Strep Throat.
B: While doctors can make mistakes and equipment can malfunction, most times they do not have an ideological reason to misdiagnose you, nor do they have preconceived notions that they will be merely finding evidence to support, therefore I regard their opinion much more than I do that of the common person, or that of Professors in other fields.
C: You contradicted yourself several times in this post. You say that I am "arguing with someone not in the room", and yet when I made the same statement earlier you argued with me. You said that you would not consider the opinion of someone without a PhD, and said that it is arrogant to question someone with a PhD. THAT is what I was arguing. If you did not say straight out that someone with a PhD could not be wrong, you did imply it, and you certainly said that it is arrogant and wrong for one without a PhD to argue with one who does have a PhD. What you are doing now is backtracking.

[Vuk]

Not really, he was anti capitalist but also extremely anti communist. It was a semi state directed economy, but private property was still maintained. The economic policies of the Nazi's were taken from left and right both to the point where it is really a wash in that manner. However, to say that the overall tone of the book is not right wing authoritarian is false.

EDIT: Don't contrast anything with the Tea Party. The Tea Party doesn't even know what it really stands for.

Hitler wasn't just leftist he was extreme-leftist, he hated the communists for different reasons but admitted it was basicly the same thing. Palin's stunt is very dangerous she should have known better, but it might a coincidence that it led to this massacre. Griffen seems like an unlikely candidate anyway, pro gun posession for example, also pro-Israel from what I've heard. Media jumped on like a pack of starved hyena's but they might got it wrong, looks more like a neo-nazi rather than the tea crowd

He was certainly not extreme-left, he left businesses to make their own competitive decisions and promoted competition among businesses and kept private property as long as it didn't interfere with the states business. From my understanding he directed the economy only to the point where the state could always benefit from the companies and be stronger from it. He wasn't out to dismantle the idea of private enterprise but it seemed more like out to make sure that none of the economic elites could challenge his authority and at the same time bolster his government's strength.

EDIT: Just a quick look at the wiki page says it was mainly a right-wing philosophy. The political compass we use to introduce ourselves in the stickied thread puts him as a little bit to the right.

Frags is still in denial, ACIN.

Everything bad must be "the other side".

As for the democrats, however, their policy have most in common with the policy of a european conservative pwrty, though with a small minority who would identify with the right with of a european labour party(ie. blair).

Ralph Nader is closest to the european left.

He wasn't against private property of party members but economy was subjective to the state. There is really nothing that can put Hitler in the rightwing sphere, unless you see racism and militarism as rightwing, with racism you would almost have a point because of the social darwinism of the 19th century, but if you make up a balance calling Mein Kampf and Hitler rightwing is way off. Read any socialist manifest and replace 'capital' with 'jew'

disclaimer, this isn't meant as an attack on the modern left, that's way off as well

Nationalism is a right-wing thing, frags, and what ties him to the right. Same goes for imperialism. Franco called his idelogy "fascism with social reform", which is fitting.

But is it standard, capitalist right-wing? No, hence the term "the third way", meaning that national socialism is "in between" socialism and capitalism.

There are three kinds of "right-wing":
1. Capitalist right, which hitler was not
2. Religous right, which hitler was not
3. Nationalist right, which Hitler was

It should also be noted that Lenin adored jews.

Maybe you should reread the thread. Here it is.

EDIT: Frags said that it could not be Right Wing rhetoric behind his actions, because he posted Mein Kampf online, and that is not something that the Right Wing in America believes in. ACIN then pulled a Godwin and tried to tie it to the Right in America.

[Strike For The South]

C: You contradicted yourself several times in this post. You say that I am "arguing with someone not in the room", and yet when I made the same statement earlier you argued with me. You said that you would not consider the opinion of someone without a PhD, and said that it is arrogant to question someone with a PhD. THAT is what I was arguing. If you did not say straight out that someone with a PhD could not be wrong, you did imply it, and you certainly said that it is arrogant and wrong for one without a PhD to argue with one who does have a PhD. What you are doing now is backtracking.

Holy nut sack on a stick did you not read what I posted earlier?

Yes you can disagree with a someone who has a PhD and of course these people can be wrong but don't assume for a second that there is not merit in what they are talking about, and unless you can back your asseritions with credible evidence...shut your damn mouth freaking whipersnappers

[Lemur]

Don't have the time to keep up, but this appears to be Stupid Law Proposal Number Two:

A spokesperson for Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told The Hill on Wednesday afternoon that the congressman plans to introduce legislation that will allow members of Congress to carry weapons both in the District of Columbia and on the House floor.

“There is a rash of legislation further infringing on Second Amendment rights that has been unwisely proffered in the wake of events in Tucson,” Gohmert told The Hill in a statement regarding the proposed legislation. “If members of Congress wishes to carry a weapon in the federal District of Columbia, it should be permissible. Accordingly, we are in the process of drafting a bill that will allow members of Congress to do that.”

Gohmert said he does not plan to carry weapon himself, but that he believe members of Congress ought have the right to protect themselves from “sudden acts of violence like the heartless shooting in Tucson, Arizona.”

And once we're done making crosshairs illegal and making it permissible for Boehner and Pelosi to pack heat on the floor, maybe we can revisit the Freedom Fries issue?

[HoreTore]

Maybe you should reread the thread. Here it is.

EDIT: Frags said that it could not be Right Wing rhetoric behind his actions, because he posted Mein Kampf online, and that is not something that the Right Wing in America believes in. ACIN then pulled a Godwin and tried to tie it to the Right in America.

So, where was it I started this again? And when was it I tied Hitler to the current "american right"(I'm guessing you refer to the libertarian movement)?

[drone]

Don't have the time to keep up, but this appears to be Stupid Law Proposal Number Two:

If this passes, I may actually start watching CSPAN.

[Lemur]

If this passes, I may actually start watching CSPAN.

Bad laws often emanate from tragedies like this one. A great post today from The Economist:

We desperately and pathetically grope for some blameworthy failure of foresight, some forward-looking lesson, some food for prudence. It doesn't matter if there are none to be found. We'll make it all up if we have to.

Not every general feature of Saturday's shootings in Tucson has been seized upon. No one is proposing new rules for supermarkets, young white guys, or sun-baked locales. The things we already fear and already desire more thoroughly to control are most vividly salient to us. We seize on those: guns, crazy people. Did Jared Lee Loughner shoot government officials with a gun? Ban guns within 1,000 feet of government officials! Was Jared Lee Loughner detectably crazy? Make involuntary commitment easier! Did Jared Lee Loughner buy a gun while detectably crazy? Tighten background-screening requirements! Did Jared Lee Loughner's gun sport an extended magazine? Ban extended magazines! [...]

We may badly want to do something, but we will be better off in the end if we hug our jerking knees and find our cool. The ordinary operation of the criminal-justice system is enough for now. If you've got to do something, why not tell a pundit or politician yammering on about background checks or forced institutionalisation to please shut up, since it's just too soon for reason to prevail.

[drone]

Bad laws often emanate from tragedies like this one.

Indeed, the USA PATRIOT Act comes to mind...

Edit-> I'm going to have to think up some really bad acronym names for the knee-jerk laws being discussed here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Was Jared Lee Loughner detectably crazy? Make involuntary commitment easier! Did Jared Lee Loughner buy a gun while detectably crazy? Tighten background-screening requirements! Did Jared Lee Loughner's gun sport an extended magazine? Ban extended magazines!

...I agree with all of these...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ok Louis I think it has been clearly established that the man was outlier. Now even if we agree that the heated rhectoric caused him to snap where should the line be drawn? I agree that crosshairs on a map are juvinelle and simply a way to pander to the LCD but I don't think banning this kind of speech will do anything to keep crazy people under wraps.

I certianly see where you are coming from, tense times make tense people and crazy tense people are bad buisness but how can we legislate this out? I feel the onus falls on the people of America to not be swayed by firebreathing preacher men posing as people who know what they are talking about. No amount of legislation can force you to turn off Beck

One should not legislate Beck off the air. People should stop listening to him in great numbers. This relegates him and his ilk back to where they belong: obscurantist, extremist drivel.

That would make it less likely for instable minds to become influenced, to lose their touch with sane reality. The schizophreniac is not readily capable of understanding that 'Socialist takeover! Government tyranny!' is rhetorics, meant to whip the base into a frenzy. He can not easily distinguish between reality and a portrayal of reality.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes you would. But I might prefer the Tellos version of this meter, Fragony would definitely use his own revolutionary&magical version, and I'm sure Furunculus would cast an appraising eye on the configuration of my version and decide to buy himself a more conservative one preferring to save money for arms&armour upgrades.

I'd prefer the meter of someone who was a super-genius because I've wasted too much time reading stuff that turned out to be crap, but I'm stuck with what I got. I don't know why you'd prefer your own over all others as you imply. And actually, a lot of judging what you read is seeing if the author is good at judging what they have read...

And while we are on the subject of the Common-sense-Sasaki-o-meter: does Sasaki, in fact, have anything to recommend him over the Phd? Do you honestly feel that you know what you're talking about for any given subject? That is something to take into account when you pass “common sense” judgment. What if you are wrong? Not being an expert you will overestimate your own ability and lack the understanding needed to see and analyse your errors. You will be completely unable to fathom why your common sense fails when the expert can point out plenty of beginner's mistakes.

What on earth are you trying to say here? I don't know why you are ranting about common sense. We are talking about judging things in an appropriately skeptical way and knowing what to trust and what not to trust.

Someone says "I have evidence that Cortexiphan decreases the risk of heart disease". You say, is he selling it? No, he's an independent researcher and evidently a scientist. So from all you know it probably does. Someone says "I have a study that shows precognition, and here's my crappy reasoning where I rant about how all the other scientists are close minded. I don't have an explanation for the effect but I believe quantum physics has something to do with it" and you should be skeptical.

There is a lot of trash here. You seem to be arguing for credulity, why? Well most likely you are making some crappy assumptions based on your only experience with this concept being in terms of the climate science debate.

So I think you'll agree that this Sasaki version of the common-sense-o-meter doesn't work for people in the real world. Might be fine for your needs, but the broader market requires something else. Something more researched, and well informed. Perhaps the opinion of an expert?

I wrote a lot of stuff about how incredibly terrible your argument is, but I'm pretty sure you were just thinking "GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS REALLY ANNOY ME ARGOUHONUSE9G9UL8DUD" when you wrote this. Simply put, if there were two articles on a subject, you would trust yourself to make one judgment of which was better--their degree. And I find it extremely doubtful that you would stop there, and not be willing to look for fallacious reasoning, baseless conclusions, etc. You cannot literally be telling me that you have no ability to judge anything outside of your own field--that you would believe in precognition until you read otherwise.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One should not legislate Beck off the air. People should stop listening to him in great numbers. This relegates him and his ilk back to where they belong: obscurantist, extremist drivel.

That would make it less likely for instable minds to become influenced, to lose their touch with sane reality. The schizophreniac is not readily capable of understanding that 'Socialist takeover! Government tyranny!' is rhetorics, meant to whip the base into a frenzy. He can not easily distinguish between reality and a portrayal of reality.

I've kind of been skimming the "what made him do it" side for a while because it's usually pointless until some time has passed, but the bit on the wiki really makes it seem like he wasn't motivated by the rhetoric at all. His beef seemed entirely to be with the fact that he asked her a question about one of his conspiracy theories and she ignored it.

Another old friend, Bryce Tierney, discussed several of Loughner's views. According to him, Loughner had exhibited a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords, a Blue Dog Democrat, and he repeatedly derided her as a "fake." This grudge intensified when he attended her August 25, 2007 campaign event and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer the question he asked her. The question was, "What is government if words have no meaning?"[17] Loughner kept a letter from the 2007 event in which Giffords thanked him for attending a 2007 event. An envelope in the same box as the letter was scrawled with phrases like "die *****" and "assassination plans have been made."[25]

Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."

Also, it seems like they are willing to say that he's a paranoid schizophrenic now. Louis, isn't paranoia about the government fairly common regardless of the rhetoric of the time?

The fact that her office window was smashed and those other incidents are much better arguments against violent rhetoric.

[Idaho]

and yet..................... of the three major forces in british politics, one is only a century old and the other collapsed into irrelevance a nearly century ago.

only the consrvative and unionist party has a continuous history of political relevance, and thus electoral success, that spans somewhere between two and four centuries depending on how measure the timeline.

it doesn't matter whether it moves away from this, or towards that, nor too how many rich people it cements in positions of undeserved privilege, what matters is whether it continues to be representative of the enfranchised electorate that it can win elections.

your assertion that the Tories are intellectually moribund, and i quote:
"That's the right all over. Opportunist and intellectually moribund."

has VERY little to recommend it.

The Tories are the very embodiment and representation of the ruling political and economic elite of the country. It's hardly surprising that they have existed for so long! It's probably more surprising that anyone else has held power. Although when they have they've been Torified.

[Vuk]

One should not legislate Beck off the air. People should stop listening to him in great numbers. This relegates him and his ilk back to where they belong: obscurantist, extremist drivel.

That would make it less likely for instable minds to become influenced, to lose their touch with sane reality. The schizophreniac is not readily capable of understanding that 'Socialist takeover! Government tyranny!' is rhetorics, meant to whip the base into a frenzy. He can not easily distinguish between reality and a portrayal of reality.

It was not Beck's 'rantings' that motivated him though, he did not even listen to Beck. The truth is that he was a leftist, and if any politics did influence him, it is therefore more likely that it was leftist politics. (Remember all the anti-government, CIA ABDUCTIONS AND TORTURE CAMPS, etc rhetoric that was coming from liberals when Bush was in office?)
I am not trying to blame this on the political rhetoric of either side, because I honestly think that it had nothing to do with it, but if you are going to say that political rhetoric is what turned the poor, innocent man into a heartless murderer, then it is most likely leftist rhetoric, and not right wing rhetoric (he was a leftist educated in a pro-communist highschool founded by Bill Ayers after all).

I honestly think that it is heartless and rather disgusting of you and everyone else who is exploiting the suffering of those who have died so that you can play your little political games. I know, they are just Americans, but get a life.

[Lemur]

The truth is that he was a leftist, and if any politics did influence him, it is therefore more likely that it was leftist politics.

I honestly think that it is heartless and rather disgusting of you and everyone else who is exploiting the suffering of those who have died so that you can play your little political games.

You're basing the "he was a leftist" meme on his posted "favorite books" thing, right? The one that includes Mein Kampf and Animal Farm?

Secondly, read those two quotes back to back. Who is trying to define the loon's politics, mirror mirror? Admittedly, you go on to say that you don't think this was a politically motivated act, but then you circle back and drag the corpse of Bill Ayers out for good measure. I mean, really, Vuk, you can debate on a higher level than this.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Sasaki: actually my argument is much simpler, but you need to read in the context of ACIN's post to which you replied. Don't dismiss the opinion of the guy/gal who studies a problem on a daily basis merely because you don't understand it, or merely because it conflicts with your idea of “common sense” when it comes to that same problem?

It might work for the individual, but it doesn't for the whole of society. To show how that doesn't work: once it was “common sense” that one should use leeches to cure a fever. The “crappy reasoning” you mention might turn out to be entirely correct, especially if it involves statistics or probability.

[Vuk]

You're basing the "he was a leftist" meme on his posted "favorite books" thing, right? The one that includes Mein Kampf and Animal Farm?

Secondly, read those two quotes back to back. Who is trying to define the loon's politics, mirror mirror? Admittedly, you go on to say that you don't think this was a politically motivated act, but then you circle back and drag the corpse of Bill Ayers out for good measure. I mean, really, Vuk, you can debate on a higher level than this.

And surely your reading comprehension is better than that. First of all, I am basing the fact that he was a leftist on things said by those who knew him, on the fact that he took drugs and believed in their legalization, hated America, hated Cops, etc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334...me_and_courts/

She described his politics in the past as "left wing, quite liberal, & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...ed_shooter.php

Parker "tweets" that she and Loughner were in the band together and were friends until 2007 when he became "reclusive" after getting alcohol poisoning and dropping out of college.

She describes him as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."

He was described by those who knew him as a "Left-wing Pothead". Almost everything I have heard said about his politics by those who knew him was that he was far-Left.
You have been reading up on this, no? I am not sure how you could have missed it. Maybe too much Huffington Post discussion boards...

As far as what I said being contradictory, it is not...at all. I did not say that it was Leftist ideology that made him shoot her. What I said is that IF it was ideology, it would stand to reason that it would be Leftist ideology...not Right-wing ideology. I made it quite clear that I thought it was neither, but warned him that such arguments would quickly turn against him (case in point) if he made them in the presence of someone who has even a tiny idea of what he is talking about. On a board where everyone shares the same opinion though, that is not likely to happen.

[al Roumi]

More on the "Blood Libel" from what is simply THE best inter-tube glob site: Gotmedieval!

Would you believe it, there is also such a thing as Ass libel and Lepper libel! No wonder Palin chose the one she did...?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I never thought I’d see the day that “blood libel” was trending at Twitter, but here we are. And even though the Wikipedia page for “blood libel” is currently embroiled in a mini edit war over whether to include this most recent popular reference to it under the “Contemporary” trivia section and a simultaneous rush to edit in as many instances of non-Jewish blood libel as possible* , guides to the history of blood libel are popping up all over the web even as I type, so I’m sure you all have adequate tools for determining just how outraged you ought to be over the whole thing without my input. This is all for the best, really, since for the most part I try to keep this blog ambivalently apolitical.**

My only worry is that in all this hubbub, the indexical value of “blood libel” is being overlooked. The reason why we need a special phrase like “blood libel” to denote lies told about what Jews do with the blood of baby Christians is the sheer number of libels which Jews have had to contend over the years.

Take for instance, the “ass libel.” According to Josephus’s Against Apion*** , deep within the holiest of holy chambers in the Temple at Jerusalem Jews secretly keep a golden statue of an ass-headed man which they worship. The Greeks of Late Antiquity and the medieval Christians after them found the idea of worshiping a donkey uniquely hilarious for reasons that escape me, though I suppose it’s just a very specific manifestation of the ever-present Christian fear that the Jews are up to naughtiness when no one’s there to police them.

Then there’s the “leper libel,” which charges that the real reason Moses was allowed to lead the Jews from Egypt was that they were actually a leprous mob that the Egyptians drove out for public health reasons. As descendants of lepers, the Jews’ natural resistance to disease was thought to have been compromised sufficiently that they could no longer safely be around unclean animals like the pig, and thus the Jewish prohibition against eating pork. And further, since they had all been infected with Leprosy Lite since birth, Jews were also thought likely to cause leprosy outbreaks amongst their Christian neighbors.

Leper, ass, and blood form the Big Three of Jewish libels, but we might add to them a demi-relation, the “sow libel,” more properly the story of the Judensau (literally, “The Jew’s Pig”),**** a late medieval German belief that Jews secretly did naughty things to pigs when Christian backs were turned. Jewish rabbis were often depicted lifting a sow’s tails in order to go peering up it’s ass, while below Jewish children suckled from the teats. Less often, the slur progressed to full on accusations of pig fucking.*****

So as you can see, it’s vitally important we keep our libels straight. If we let us the phrase “blood libel” come to mean any pernicious lie told about a group of outsiders by the majority, the next thing you know we’ll have to start using “ass blood libel” and “leper blood libel,” and then where will we be?

--

1. * I count 103 edits over the last six hours. [↩]
2. ** Though I can note that it is probably advisable to avoid the casual usage of inflammatory language when one is making a speech responding to accusations that one uses inflammatory language too casually. [↩]
3. *** Or Contra Apionem for purists and Konami fans. [↩]
4. **** Which I’ve mentioned here before, back in the waaaay early days of the blog. [↩]
5. ***** Wikipedia has a rather extensive Image gallery, for those interested. [↩]

Edit: The best bit: "for the most part I try to keep this blog ambivalently apolitical. Though I can note that it is probably advisable to avoid the casual usage of inflammatory language when one is making a speech responding to accusations that one uses inflammatory language too casually."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

@Sasaki: actually my argument is much simpler, but you need to read in the context of ACIN's post to which you replied. Don't dismiss the opinion of the guy/gal who studies a problem on a daily basis merely because you don't understand it, or merely because it conflicts with your idea of “common sense” when it comes to that same problem?

Ah, so acin made comments in context, which I talked about (mentioning that I was going broader than that context) and you were back in that context...well Frags is just saying that because he wants to I think, nothing to do with common sense or the issue of trusting expertise.

All the talk about dismissing opinions and common sense is irrelevant.

It might work for the individual, but it doesn't for the whole of society. To show how that doesn't work: once it was “common sense” that one should use leeches to cure a fever.

But this is just my point

Everyone should have an idea of what they know and what they don't. It was a common belief (never common sense but that's another debate) that leeches cure a fever precisely because people trusted authority without reminding themselves that the only reason they had to believe leeches worked is that doctors said so.

The “crappy reasoning” you mention might turn out to be entirely correct, especially if it involves statistics or probability.

So, your weatherman says that he can give you an accurate forecast a month ahead of time, would you believe him? Can't you know that he's full of it without having any special education in meteorology? I can't believe you would advocate this. If someone makes a fallacious argument and you don't have the expertise to judge the conclusion outside of the argument he made, you obviously don't accept it. It's equally obvious that the fact that someone made a bad argument for something doesn't mean the conclusion isn't true for some other reason. Who are you talking to?

What's your opinion about it besides "not dismissing an expert just because it conflicts with traditional beliefs". Since that is just you talking to yourself. I actually think this is tremendously important, since we live in democratic societies where we need to be on good footing on a huge number of complex issues. It's staggers me that someone would advocate intellectual submission. I refuse to believe you mean it.

edit: And don't tell me I'm strawmanning you because all your advocating is "not dismissing someones opinions just because you believe otherwise". Because if that's your real argument your strawmanning and insulting the whole thread, and failing at describing how to act on an important issue miserably.

[Lemur]

And surely your reading comprehension is better than that. First of all, I am basing the fact that he was a leftist on things said by those who knew him, on the fact that he took drugs and believed in their legalization, hated America, hated Cops, etc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334...me_and_courts/

Actually, reading that he sounds more like a loon than a leftist or a rightist. I don't doubt that he was a liberal when younger, but honestly he sounds like a guy who went through adult-onset paranoid schitzophrenia. And if you've ever known a paranoid schitzophrenic (as I unfortunately have), then you know their divorce from reality is total. Things from our world can set them off, indeed, but their reasoning and logic is beyond anything we can comprehend.

I think Sasaki is in the right of it, that the other incidents, such as the gun left at her town hall meeting, or the brick through the door, are much more indicative of the environment than the shooter or his despicable actions. All of the other violent rhetoric and actions appear to be unfortunate, congruent, and ultimately unrelated to the madman.

That said, note that the a black Republican official in the Arizona state party just stepped down out of fear for his family's safety after being harassed and stalked as a RINO by tea party activists.

Also note the atmosphere in the first part of this video. Clearly something is going on, and it's not just politics as usual.

[Vuk]

Actually, reading that he sounds more like a loon than a leftist or a rightist. I don't doubt that he was a liberal when younger, but honestly he sounds like a guy who went through adult-onset paranoid schitzophrenia. And if you've ever known a paranoid schitzophrenic (as I unfortunately have), then you know their divorce from reality is total. Things from our world can set them off, indeed, but their reasoning and logic is beyond anything we can comprehend.

I think Sasaki is in the right of it, that the other incidents, such as the gun left at her town hall meeting, or the brick through the door, are much more indicative of the environment than the shooter or his despicable actions. All of the other violent rhetoric and actions appear to be unfortunate, congruent, and ultimately unrelated to the madman.

That said, note that the a black Republican official in the Arizona state party just stepped down out of fear for his family's safety after being harassed and stalked as a RINO by tea party activists.

Also note the atmosphere in the first part of this video. Clearly something is going on, and it's not just politics as usual.

If that really happened, then that is a shame for Miller. It seems that Arizona is home to some very fiery people, but that is nothing new.

As far as the video, it is very disturbing, that is NOT how politics should work. Unfortunately though, it is not something new, nor is it something of the Tea Party. During the 2004 election I was threatened several times and three people were attacked on my campus for wearing Bush/Cheney pins. I was backed into a corner and threatened by several martial artists (IN my TKD class!) during the last Presidential election because of my support of Palin. The only reason I have gotten away with displaying my political allegiance on campus is because I am a big guy, and liberals are too afraid to attack me. Coincidently, the only conservatives I know on campus who wear affiliation pins during elections are large males, because everyone else is too afraid. Living in fear at your school is not normal politics either, but that is human being for you, and it has been around a lot longer than Sarah Palin. There were actually times when things were a lot worse. (I am thinking of Andrew Jackson)
It would not be honest to deny that politics in America today have their dark side, but it would equally as dishonest to say that that is something new, or something related to Sarah Palin. You will ALWAYS have crazies on both sides, but it is not politics or rhetoric that make those people crazy. Crazy people are simply crazy, and they will get worked up about anything. (Working at Arbys this summer the police had to take a guy and his wife away because they were screaming, getting violent, and destroying our poster...I highly doubt that that had anything to do with Palin.)

As far as politics being what drove this guy to kill people, I would only buy into that if they found out that he had a politically motivated accomplice who drove him to do what he did. By himself though, I would put it down to utter insanity and heavy drug use. He should have been institutionalize a long time ago.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It wasn't me who pulled the Godwin. The first person to bring up Hitler is the Godwin and that is Fragony, defending the right by declaring Marx and Hitler to be evil leftists. I then corrected him saying I believe most scholars place him on the right side of the spectrum. Now you are claiming that I painted Hitler on you as if it was a trump card I pulled out.

This is exactly what I am saying when I told you Vuk that you see what you want to see. The very first mention of Hitler is from Fragony doing exactly what you are claiming me, SFTS and HoreTore are doing.

I have more to say, but I have to go to a meeting and then dinner. Brb, 4 hours lol.

[Megas Methuselah]

No Hore Tore, you and ACIN pulled a Godwin and tried to tie Hitler to the Right. My point is that the American Right is NOT related to the European Right, as we have very different definitions. We were talking about the American Right, and if you look at the definitions of Right and Left in America, Hitler and Stalin were both far Left. You Euroweiners can call him whatever you want in you own little continent, but to start applying your definitions on a discussion of American Right and Left is total BS. They are completely different things.

What the hell, man? Pulling some pages out of my book, and you don't even belong to this continent. What kind of a person comdemns his own people? Now listen, this is something that I've been working hard on for the past while. You need to open your eyes and your mind. It's difficult to do this after all the needless hardships I've experienced in my life, but... hatred is wasted energy, mah man. Chill out. Smoke a cigar or something.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That said, note that the a black Republican official in the Arizona state party just stepped down out of fear for his family's safety after being harassed and stalked as a RINO by tea party activists.

Also note the atmosphere in the first part of this video. Clearly something is going on, and it's not just politics as usual.

It remains frightening to see. Both these examples. Let's hope and pray the brownshirt shock troops do not manage to permanently destabilise American democracy. In fact, let's hope they don't permanently take over the GOP, but I'm not even sure they won't.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, reading that he sounds more like a loon than a leftist or a rightist. I don't doubt that he was a liberal when younger, but honestly he sounds like a guy who went through adult-onset paranoid schitzophrenia. And if you've ever known a paranoid schitzophrenic (as I unfortunately have), then you know their divorce from reality is total. Things from our world can set them off, indeed, but their reasoning and logic is beyond anything we can comprehend.

Indeed. A person I know who's known a couple such afflicted people believes the same thing.

He's not right or left. He's crazy, and it may have been that he was obsessed with Gifford since 2007 or earlier.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

bollox. what facts?

both sides have used targets.
both sides have talking of killing, or "taking out" the other.
both sides support base has been responsible for broad demonisation of the 'other'

you talk of me only seeing what i want to see and reality disagreeing, i say that is a crock, and the evidence witnessed in the tea-party years in no substantial measure outweighs that of the anti-bush days.

You are really not getting what I am saying. Both sides have shown to produce violent rhetoric. One however in present day America produces much, much more violent rhetoric than the other side. And tihs side has been outprodcing the other side by a wide margin for over 30 years. That is the point I am trying to make. When Bush was around you had comedians making fun of how stupid he was, now that Obama is around you have talk radio hosts telling the public to load their guns and stand ready.

I think it's entirely possible that the right uses more violent rhetoric. There are trends of pacifism and anti-gun beliefs on the left, a liberal president in office, a general ability to get upset about dolphins being killed, etc.

But I just don't see it as an important statistic. What are we supposed to do with it? I have a general disdain for anyone who uses crappy rhetoric in politics period. I vastly prefer someone I disagree with who writes or speaks well to someone who I agree with in general who doesn't. So why should the question about which group does it more interest me?

You expose the source for what they are, agitators and saboteurs of the political discourse. By pumping out violent rhetoric, the divide between the parties becomes harder to bridge, the country becomes inherently harder to run and everyone's life is made worse for it. Why do ever call out people here in the backroom? When someone goes to far, ideally we call them out and say "Not good." and we try to promote a higher standard so we don't become TWC. Why is it acceptable to have the discourse of the entire nation become on the level of TWC?

This argument is great in theory. Obviously a phd's opinion is worth more than a non-phd all else being equal. But in practice I prefer to use the patended sasaki "does this guy know what he's talking about"-o-meter.

All you need to verify that he knows what he is talking about is:
A. Does he have a high level degree?
B. Where did he get his degree?

At some point you have to look at yourself and say, you know what even though I distrust people when they try to tell me what's happening maybe this PhD graduate from Harvard/USC/MIT knows his stuff and I should take him for his word.

Because it's actually true that you can know that an argument advanced by someone with a phd is wrong without knowing much about the field. There are broad trends and biases that people fall prey to, there are theories that are too neat and tidy for the real world, theories that misuse words to reach a conclusion (gardner's theory of multiple intelligences comes to mind, he redefines intelligence).

This is why I say it is good to critically review what any one person says, but not to throw out the entire community's established compilations, collections and theorems.

About modern economics, you ought to read the book "The black swan" by nicholas taleb. I honestly can't imagine you not being interested.

I will check that out, thank you.

Yes you would. But I might prefer the Tellos version of this meter, Fragony would definitely use his own revolutionary&magical version, and I'm sure Furunculus would cast an appraising eye on the configuration of my version and decide to buy himself a more conservative one preferring to save money for arms&armour upgrades.

And while we are on the subject of the Common-sense-Sasaki-o-meter: does Sasaki, in fact, have anything to recommend him over the Phd? Do you honestly feel that you know what you're talking about for any given subject? That is something to take into account when you pass “common sense” judgment. What if you are wrong? Not being an expert you will overestimate your own ability and lack the understanding needed to see and analyse your errors. You will be completely unable to fathom why your common sense fails when the expert can point out plenty of beginner's mistakes.

So I think you'll agree that this Sasaki version of the common-sense-o-meter doesn't work for people in the real world. Might be fine for your needs, but the broader market requires something else. Something more researched, and well informed. Perhaps the opinion of an expert?

Agreed completely with this statement.

About Nazism being rightwing, nice try.
Of course, no one of any ideology wants to be associated with Hitler, and everyone wants to associate their opponents with Hitler. The Left has simple done a better job (coincidently, most people with PhD's are on the Left).
The core of Right Wing ideology (at least in terms of the USofA) is economic (aka. The Free Market). There is also social conservatism, which while important, always plays second fiddle to economic ideology when determining someone's 'Rightwingness'. How you or anyone else can classify Nationalism as Rightwing (at least in the sense of the USofA) is beyond me). Economically, Hitler was far Left. Socially, Hitler was polar Left. What the American Right stands for is the absolute freedom of the individual, and the limiting of the government to the point where it just has the power to perform a few, essential tasks. Hitler's social and economic policies contradicted these absolutely essential principles in every way imaginable. Hitler was just as Left wing as Stalin.
Both were dictators (something the Right does not believe in) who used their governments to control industry and the lives of their citizens (again, things the Right does not believe in), both emphasized the government over the people (which is the exact opposite of the Right). In Stalin's case he did so by preaching that the whole was greater than the individual, and Hitler did it with his fascist ideas. In the end, communism (socialism) and fascism were just different means to the same, Far Left end. To categorize it as Right Wing is simple to try to distance it from yourself and attack the Right (something that people with PhD next to their names looooove to do).

As SFTS says you are just being reactionary and anti-intellectual. From reading this, I am starting to agree with SFTS's statement that applying past ideologies to current views of the left-right spectrum is futile.

No, not at all. If you had read the posts of the last page Lemur, you would see that it was on topic. Funny then that you did not tell ACIN that.
And no, I am not saying that ALL people of the Left are Nazis, but that ALL Nazis were on the Left. There is a big difference.

@StrIKE And yet, what ACIN tried to do just a few pages ago was equate Nazism with the US Right. My point is that by US definition, but Stalin and Hitler were Far Left. Euroweiners can have whatever definitions they want, but when talking about American Right and Left, you must use the American definitions of Right and Left (because that is how Americans identify themselves).

Complete nonsense. You really are lacking when it comes to reading the important nuances of what people say. I never suggested that the Nazi's belong o nthe American right, I simply held that according to all the sources I can find, the academic community seems to label the Nazi's as more right wing while using large left wing economic policies to bolster the strength of the government. Never did I say that the American right are Nazi's. You are either not reading thoroughly or you are purposely making a strawman.

It is not anti intellectual. I believe that everyone owes it to themselves to be an intellectual, and I place great value on it. You see, the problem is that many people posing as intellectuals are not. In fact, they are just politically polarized people who used the fancy methods they learn at their Universities to try to make their position sound as good as possible, and their opponents worse.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that the better a wordsmith/orator/writer a person is, the more cautious you should be when considering their arguments, as such a person in the worst case could simply be doing a good job at making a bad argument look good.

So please, quit throwing out the soundbytes and read my post.

EDIT: Actually Strike, Mao got a huge part of his support and some of his top men from Colleges in China. If it weren't for the College students, Mao would not have been successful.

The intellectuals are those with Master's and PhDs, those who are talking without one of those degrees is fake and it is as easy as a google search to see if they are legit or not. Universities don't teach fancy methods, they teach knowledge and a way of critically viewing situations impartially actually.

Your edit doesn't really help your case. Someone advocating for something better took advantage of idealistic youth? Must be that left wing thinking sigh. You seem to skip over the part where the college kids were rolled over by tanks a couple of decades later. Was the new generation of Chinese college youth suddenly right-wing and the left-wing government put a stop to them?