It's very commonly used to represent any kind of target or goal, and when used on graphs, charts, or maps, it almost never has violent connotations. The violent connotations only really arise when it's placed on the image or representation of a human.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
edit: I think any kind of assertion that Palin was trying to incite people to violence against democrats is overblown. The woman is stupid, not a psychopath.
Non-violent, like: this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I fear that you're conflating all kinds of "crosshairs" and the particular kind of crosshair used by Palin. Because that one you'll be pretty hard pressed to find a non-violent connotation for (besides: A crosshair on a deer is non-violent as well?)
Not sure I understand what you are getting at. Is it somehow better that this is a pot-smoking, lucid dreaming psychopath, as opposed to a tea-party supporting psychopath? Are we really saying that one is preferable to the other? Do you think it's a consolation to those families who lost the ones they love?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Aren't all psychopaths bad?
I've seen many X-marks-the-spot on graphs, charts and maps. Not aware of any rifle scope cross-hairs until Palin.
Violent connotations can be associated with gun use. Example: human outline on the targets used at gun galleries. Violent connotations can be made without direct association of a human shape, by using certain language and icons together. Example: Freedom Fighters + images of guns, on a flag.
I don't think Palin intended to incite violence, and she is indeed stupid for not realizing the impact of certain political speech that appeals to violent extremists.
Incidentally, my belief is this is yet another example of our dysfunctional healthcare system that pooh-poohs mental illnesses. The shooter is obviously mentally ill. :(
I agree. A set of crosshairs on a map doesn't make people want to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
"We’re on Sarah Palin’s ‘targeted’ list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, we’re in the cross-hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize that there are consequences to that action."
-U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, March 25, 2010
You mean one of the common visual symbols commonly for "target," like a bulls-eye? Well, since again it's a visual representation of the word target, I would look to non-violent uses of the word target. Would you like me to list some synonyms for target which clearly convey that it doesn't necessarily mean violence? Should I be using it in a sentence? Maybe I should point out that the same attempt to insist her use of "target" promoted violence also attempted to interpret the word "fire," clearly used in a job-termination sense, as being another call for shooting Democratic politicians in the head?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Wow, that video made me shiver. :(
I agree with her: leaders should condemn hate speech and threats when they appear, even covert or carefully "massaged" threats. The Tea Party should be more vocal condemning the homophobes, racists, and fear mongerers hiding in plain view among their ranks, and throw them out. Republicans should be more adamant about denouncing the extremists they attract, including the damn Birthers.
Is it too late to expect Fox News to re-think their business model?
To Fuzzy: there's a difference between bullseye and cross-hairs. We have Target (the store) using a bullseye, and we hear the word "target" used in business and daily life all the time. We have politicians using "war words" all the time. Even the word threat is used frequently. None of that makes me think of shooting a gun. But a scope cross-hair does.
I don't play shooter video games, so is this some benign symbol I don't know about? :noob:
Yes, an excellent example of "have you stopped beating your wife" political rhetoric. If the people running the ad/campaign try to rebut, then the political conversation has been turned away from where they wanted it, and the allegation that the campaign is promoting violence is what will stick in people's heads. And if no rebuttal is offered then the people in those focused seats can keep on banging that drum all they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Whatever Dread, your opinion was made Up well before I tried to tell you this went back to the last presidential election. Goes prt in parcel with your slide to the right wing, so I see no point in arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Its more careless exploitation than intent. Her problem is stupidity, not evil machinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Clinton's campaign HQ? The Tea Party in the 2008 election before it ever existed? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's an expression. One that can be misinterpreted, but who hasn't said or heard "I'm in his/her crosshairs over ____" in casual conversation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
My mind was made Up? Why does that need to be capitalized? What is this grave judgement I have made when I say that it's too soon to judge?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Come on, snap out of it.
||P, new paragraph still has meaning, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
After the "violence" during the '08 election, it takes a particularly dense or clueless person and/or political party to continue rhetoric that can incite "the violent crazy fringe".
Do you agree, or not?
What the hell? I'm not a fan of Palin (I'd like to see Romney or Jindal win in 2012) but how is having targets on cities in anyway related to violence? Thats absolutely retarded. Yes they are targets in terms of political races. Palin has never endorsed, condoned or supported violence in anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Hmm, is that kinda like you saying you've never endorsed, condoned or supported violence in any way, and you just happen to create threads hailing people who shoot toothpaste thieves (in the back), or anyone who shoots first and asks questions later, as heroes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Well for one thing, I'm not Palin.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And I do endorse violence against criminals in the defense of home and property. If my posts somehow influence people to violently defend their homes, well that would be sweet. But we both know that's not going to happen.
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us...r.html?_r=1&hp
If you read the rest of the piece, you'll see the guy had significant mental problems and had them long before the Tea Party came into existence. People really should refrain from using this tragedy to take political cheap shots.
I wasn't here during the midterm elections, so you'll have to forgive me for not knowing if this has been discussed or not, but did Obama receive this much flack for calling Republicans 'enemies'?
Isn't this just the nature of politics, certainly nothing to, pardon the pun, get up in arms about?
Hope and change. :downcast:
Some of us did mention mental illness. :bored:
And it's not a "political cheap shot" to call out political leaders who hire campaign aides, promotional advisors, and marketers very savvy at using language or creating slogans. Feigning surprise at this point is lame.
The Tea Party is just a new word for right-wing extremism, because their leadership didn't want to kick out the homophobes, racists, birthers, or fanatic gun owners in their ranks.
Didn't your son support a "tea-party" candidate? Is he a homophobe, racist, birther, or gun fanatic?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Is there any evidence to support this disturbed young man being a member of the tea party?
It's not a cheap shot to blame the Tea Party for this despite absolutely no evidence that it had any role in this guy's decision to kill people? Sure, nothing wrong with using a tragedy to attack people you don't like.
No, he supported Ron Paul. Back then (if you recall) there was plenty of vitriol calling Paul a racist, but he did a fairly good job of countering those attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
No. None. Did I imply somewhere that he was?Quote:
Is there any evidence to support this disturbed young man being a member of the tea party?
My point is that general Tea Party leadership has been cavalier with their political speech, and not dissociating from the radical extreme element that joins them. They could and should have. Instead, their whole movement has been tainted, and people joke about those crazy tea baggers.
Before everyone starts blaming Sarah Palin, consider the fact that the shooter is completely insane.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517...me_and_courts/
Not everything needs to have partisan politics dragged into it, you guys.:rolleyes:Quote:
In one of several Youtube videos, which featured text against a dark background, Loughner described inventing a new U.S. currency and complained about the illiteracy rate among people living in Giffords' congressional district in Arizona.
"I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People," Loughner wrote. "Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't have happen (sic)."
Where did I blame the Tea Party for this tragedy? Nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Looks to me like you're the one making cheap shots to attack people you don't like. :donkey:
There are many who consider Ron Paul to be the grandfather of the tea party movement. The original tea party was fundamentally associated with him, though somewhere along the lines the movement shifted to its current... bigger tent status.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Throughout this thread that has been the implication, both by you and others. Why else would Palin's targets be an issue?Quote:
No. None. Did I imply somewhere that he was?
If before we had any specific information on the subject, what if someone had come into this thread complaining about how it's a damn shame black men were responsible for so much bloodshed and that it's inevitable because those dark-ity types love their rap violence? What if they called on the NAACP to denounce the actions of the violent black men in their midst. That they should distance themselves from these angry, gun toting thugs? What would we think of that poster?
They are absolutely identical as visual communication symbols. Their differences are aesthetic. A reticle is more modernist, it frequently has a more "technological" flavor, both can be cartoony but a bullseye is more likely to evoke a slightly comical impression, etc. There is NO difference in their meaning. They are both visual symbols for "target." That is the entire sum of their meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
A lone psycho is an isolated incident that could happen at any time and place, a politically motivated killing inspired by inflammatory rhetoric from tea party leading figures is party of a trend leading somewhere very ugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I certainly didn't. And the German translation "Fadenkreuz" has a pretty strong connotation of violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Then again, I'm also absolutely appalled by the way US politicians use smear campaigns. I reminds me of apes flinging shit around - which only leaves everyone dirty.
So, now the police are talking about the existence of an accomplice, and are seeking a second subject, a white male in his 50s.
Limited coverage of the incident here, not even confirmation of the gunman's identity, just that a man had been taken into custody and apparently 18 were shot.
Any information on motive?
Based on what's been found online on the shooter so far (YouTube videos, MySpace page, old acquaintances commenting on him) it looks like the main motivation is some level of clinical delusional insanity.
You should perhaps try rereading the thread then. No one is connecting this shooter with Palin, or the Tea Party. Palin just happens to the dumbest talking head and needs to produce hand notes and visual reminders. Everyone is talking about how crosshairs don't mean violence, how it needs context, but they are ignoring that Palin released this hitlist alongside her Reload! campaign. Thats your context, and thats suggesting violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Words don't pull triggers, but they go a long way towards brainwashing the ignorant and confused. Society brushes off these rabble rousers as "thats just Palin", or "thats Beck for you" (tides thread), because addressing them means going down to their level, and you never lower yourself that far for an idiot. They have far more experience there. So instead their rhetoric continues, increases, and eventually someone snaps. No, no one is suggesting Palin or the Tea Party told this crazy to shot up a fucking parking lot, but you would have to be really, really, stupid to think that this district hasn't been swamped with politically motivated rhetoric. The constant barrage of attack campaigns from the last election drove most of us here crazy, and we're supposed to be a little more normal.
These attention whores don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, they wouldn't care if the country burned down around them because of what they said, as long as it increases their pocketbooks and exposure.
:D That cap came from a quirky bug my iPad/Safari does because it's all the time trying to anticipate what I'm going to say. I just had too much wine to care to fix it using the iPad's clunky editing functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I've seen plenty of people online put crosshairs on political opponents and never once thought they wanted me to shoot them. Target is legitimate political discourse.
But you're not (very) insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Should politicians refrain from doing anything that might conceivably provoke an insane person to violence (of which there's no evidence in this case by the way)?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
You tell me.
Thanks for the detailed response.
It's definitely a campaign in poor taste, but I think that's the end of it. I somehow doubt anyone sane would be convinced to go out and assassinate a politician based off her remarks, and those that would are likely to have done something equally insane without her prodding. There seems to be a deep seated fear here that Tea Party members are just waiting to explode and commit treason, but I have yet to see any proof supporting that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Do you think Palin's or the Tea Parties rhetoric influenced this troubled young man to kill?Quote:
Words don't pull triggers, but they go a long way towards brainwashing the ignorant and confused. Society brushes off these rabble rousers as "thats just Palin", or "thats Beck for you" (tides thread), because addressing them means going down to their level, and you never lower yourself that far for an idiot. They have far more experience there. So instead their rhetoric continues, increases, and eventually someone snaps. No, no one is suggesting Palin or the Tea Party told this crazy to shot up a fucking parking lot, but you would have to be really, really, stupid to think that this district hasn't been swamped with politically motivated rhetoric. The constant barrage of attack campaigns from the last election drove most of us here crazy, and we're supposed to be a little more normal.
Can't say I disagree with the attention whoring, but somehow I don't see the same malevolence that many are predisposed to see. I sincerely doubt Palin wants to see the country go up in flames, just as I sincerely doubt Obama does. These are people trying to do the best they can for a country I think they love. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I think that's a truism that can be applied to both political parties.Quote:
These attention whores don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, they wouldn't care if the country burned down around them because of what they said, as long as it increases their pocketbooks and exposure.