Kathy Griffin on D Trump.

[iNow]

I understand the appeal of leading by example and having the dignity to stand firm on principle. Where I'm struggling with the "when they go low, we go high" narrative is that it doesn't seem to be working, at least not when viewed in terms of election outcomes.

 

 

 

 

We're not even bringing knives to gun fights here. More like strongly worded letters, snarky signs, and cupcakes.

 

Democrats with this high-minded low-brow avoiding attitude are getting their asses kicked across the board.

Edited June 4, 2017 by iNow

[KipIngram]

You're implying that those negative techniques work. I think it's those extreme "edge people" that both produce and respond to such things, whereas its the more sensible middle segment that really steers election outcomes.

 

Furthermore, anyone who attaches behaviors like Griffin's to the candidates in elections is behaving irrationally - no politician should be held responsible for the character of the people who vote for him or her.

 

We're science-minded here, and we're supposed to know that any single correlation doesn't necessarily prove a causal connection.

 

The general character of the Democratic party and candidates / office holders is not less today than it was a few days ago just because one supporter behaved in a tacky way.

Edited June 4, 2017 by KipIngram

[iNow]

You're implying that those negative techniques work.

Exactly. Perhaps you missed how rapidly the tea party rose to power and how quickly they biased everything toward the right of center? It's the most passionate and vocal who vote and sway elections. The moderate middle tend to be too aloof and apathetic to put up the numbers needed.

[KipIngram]

Well, voter turnout is a problem; I agree. And i do fault non-voters for that, though they are of course free to do as they wish. If you sit back and let the 10% on each end do all the arguing and voting, then you're going to have to put up with a government that whipsaws back and forth between the two extremes, and that's certainly what we've had recently.

 

I'd think, though, that "wrathful behavior" on one end would tend to motivate more people on the other end to vote, so in that sense it's not only pathetic behavior but also a flawed strategy.

[iNow]

We seem to agree, and I'm no supporter of the status quo here, nor do I support what this comic did (only her right to do it and our right to highlight the hypocrisy since Ted Nugent and others did the same thing yet get invited to the WH).

 

Me? I'd go so far as to make voting compulsory and implement instant runoff voting, but that's a topic for another thread. ( http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100305-is-it-true-about-the-us-ballot-papers/?p=953334 )

 

Just commenting about the reality we face. We're constantly being polarized, wedged into us/them ingroups and outgroups like tribal monkeys about complete non issues.

 

Seriously, why does anyone care WTF Kathy Griffin said? It's an irrelevant distraction from the things that actually matter, but do we actually talk about and act on those those other more important things?

 

Nope...Instead it's all, "Hey, look over there!! Abortion, gay marriage, Reverend Wright, birth certificate, terrorist fist bump, Podesta email, Kathy Griffin..."

 

Sad!

Edited June 4, 2017 by iNow

[KipIngram]

Yes, "squirrel strategy." Some acquaintances and I chat on IRC, and that's what we call it. Never mind all the important stuff - THERE'S A SQUIRREL!!!!!

 

I don't know how much compulsory voting would change things. You're presuming people would (since they knew they had to vote) inform themselves of the issues and vote with the same sort of attitude you and I vote. I think many would resent the requirement and would just "make a motion." That would tend to randomize, and it would still be the extremes that controlled the outcome.

 

Maybe a subset of the increased vote would arise from people who took it seriously because they were not allowed to ignore it, and so that would help some. I'm just not sure how much.

 

I totally agree with you, though, that the right response to people like Nugent and Griffin is to ignore them. Not just the public response - the media response too. Our media behave more like entertainment outlets these days than like real news sources.

[MigL]

"the even bigger idiots, who get their 'news' from the likes of Daily Mail, are spurred on to take things even farther"

was said by someone with foresight.

( OK, it was me in post #22 )

 

And sure enough a bigger idiot named J Hodgkinson comes along...

[swansont]

The GOP took the position that rhetoric did not incite violence quite a while ago. And despite Newt's (and others') blathering, most of the rhetoric from prominent folk has come from the right.

[MigL]

I hope you don't mean that, because the Republicans took a stupid position, and a lot of the inciting comes from the right, it excuses what has happened ( possibly due to media incitement ).

[DrmDoc]

Idiots like C Giffen ( and T Nugent ) should be condemned by everyone, before the even bigger idiots, who get their 'news' from the likes of Daily Mail, are spurred on to take things even farther.

 

There are idiots on both sides and none are "bigger idiots" than the other--especially, when individuals from either side advocate or use violence to make a political statement.

Edited June 15, 2017 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

I hope you don't mean that, because the Republicans took a stupid position, and a lot of the inciting comes from the right, it excuses what has happened ( possibly due to media incitement ).

Not excusing it by any stretch of the imagination. I was pointing out the GOP hypocrisy^2 of blaming rhetoric from the left for allegedly inciting this.

[Phi for All]

There are idiots on both sides and none are "bigger idiots" than the other--especially, when individuals from either side advocate or use violence to make a political statement.

 

I disagree with everything after the first six words. The rest is an excuse for the alt-right to use violence, and they've been using these same words a LOT.

[DrmDoc]

 

I disagree with everything after the first six words. The rest is an excuse for the alt-right to use violence, and they've been using these same words a LOT.

 

It's only an excuse if you find such behavior acceptable, which I do not. The point I was trying to make was that I think violence is inexcusable for either side regardless of their political statement or who appears to advocate it more.

Edited June 15, 2017 by DrmDoc

[KipIngram]

 

The point I was trying to make was that I think violence is inexcusable for either side regardless of their political statement or who appears to advocate it more.

 

And a +1 point it is.

[MigL]

And how about the ( alleged ) woman-hitting, drunkard J Depp asking if another actor should go J W Booth and kill the President ?

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into the actions and words of these idiotic, attention seekers ( no publicity is bad publicity ) from Hollywood.

Yet they have a disproportionally large amount of credibility with tabloid readers, young people, and anyone whose mind is easily influenced.

 

And then people get shot !

( oh wait, that already happened )

[rangerx]

And how about the ( alleged ) woman-hitting, drunkard J Depp asking if another actor should go J W Booth and kill the President ?

 

 

Are you advocating censorship?

Freedom of expression is just that, freedom. Anyone is free to say whatever they want (apart from fire in a theater), but conversely anyone is free to call them assholes for doing so.

[swansont]

Are you advocating censorship?

 

Freedom of expression is just that, freedom. Anyone is free to say whatever they want (apart from fire in a theater), but conversely anyone is free to call them assholes for doing so.

Threatening the president isn't protected speech.

 

But then, Trump invites such people into the WH. So complaining about one but not the others seems hypocritical, as we've discussed.

[rangerx]

Threatening the president isn't protected speech.

 

But then, Trump invites such people into the WH. So complaining about one but not the others seems hypocritical, as we've discussed.

 

Trump ran on a platform of abandoning political correctness, by basically saying whatever he wanted, yet not allowing anyone to criticize him for any of it. Hypocrisy at it's height.

 

While I doubt Depp or Griffin meant what they said, the republicans treat as though they did. Both have apologized. We move on. However, Republicans rarely offer or accept apologies, instead double down with something even more ridiculous.

[CharonY]

Threatening the president isn't protected speech.

But then, Trump invites such people into the WH. So complaining about one but not the others seems hypocritical, as we've discussed.

It is also more worrying if a person in power (including politician) does it (and gets an invite).

[GeniusIsDisruptive]

 

It was acceptable behavior during Obama's presidency, so why should it be any different now?

 

 

Other than an affront to a sitting president, how is Nugent's advocating decapitating democrats any different from Cathy's artistic expression. Although both maybe deplorable expressions, they are nonetheless expressions necessary to the freedom of our democracy.

 

 

WAS it "acceptable behavior during Obama's presidency"? Acceptable to you?

Please, stop the rhetorical nonsense. That's all it is and you know it.

 

The CEO of a technology company in San Diego publicly threatened to assassinate President Trump. He was abruptly fired, and he apologized profusely. Too late.

 

An art teacher at University of Alaska, Anchorage drew a painting of Trump decapitated, his head held by a nude homosexual, whose left leg was being hugged by Hillary. Lovely. Classy, much like, oh Piss Christ.

 

A lecturer in Fresno State I believe hit a Trump supporter over the head with a heavy U-Bolt bike lock, which could have been fatal.

A chubby girl lit the hair of a Trump supporter on fire. All in good fun, right?

 

The infamous Democrat attempted to assassinate Republicans playing baseball. And when a New York congressman said "both sides need to reduce the rhetoric," Nancy Pelosi went crazy. She exclaimed, "How dare he say such a thing (as we should tone down our rhetoric). How dare he."

 

So excuses are ALWAYS proffered for outrageous Democrat words and deeds. But Republicans, should they try anything hurtful or hateful, well that is a very different story. Shut them up, boycott the hell out of all of them. Snowflakes unite, gather your crayons and Play Doh. Let's go to a Safe Space.

[MigL]

You make some valid points which are certainly worthy of discussion, but you present them in a confrontational manner.

 

Why the rant/attack on Democrats at the end ? Why the need to label ?

There is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, no matter whether its Republican or Democrat behavior.

 

All your approach ensures is a constantly rising negative rep, possible banning, and other members totally ignoring what may have been valid points because they perceive a personal attack.

 

Are you getting anywhere with this approach ?

[DrmDoc]

 

 

WAS it "acceptable behavior during Obama's presidency"? Acceptable to you?

Please, stop the rhetorical nonsense. That's all it is and you know it.

 

The CEO of a technology company in San Diego publicly threatened to assassinate President Trump. He was abruptly fired, and he apologized profusely. Too late.

 

An art teacher at University of Alaska, Anchorage drew a painting of Trump decapitated, his head held by a nude homosexual, whose left leg was being hugged by Hillary. Lovely. Classy, much like, oh Piss Christ.

 

A lecturer in Fresno State I believe hit a Trump supporter over the head with a heavy U-Bolt bike lock, which could have been fatal.

A chubby girl lit the hair of a Trump supporter on fire. All in good fun, right?

 

The infamous Democrat attempted to assassinate Republicans playing baseball. And when a New York congressman said "both sides need to reduce the rhetoric," Nancy Pelosi went crazy. She exclaimed, "How dare he say such a thing (as we should tone down our rhetoric). How dare he."

 

So excuses are ALWAYS proffered for outrageous Democrat words and deeds. But Republicans, should they try anything hurtful or hateful, well that is a very different story. Shut them up, boycott the hell out of all of them. Snowflakes unite, gather your crayons and Play Doh. Let's go to a Safe Space.

 

For all your bluster, your point was lost on me. If I understand correctly, you are angry that negative responses to Republican rhetoric appear to be more intense than those responses to Democratic rhetoric. If so, you're wrong. The opposite of your opinion is suggested by the list of supposed Democratic acts and subsequent retribution for those acts that you have provided herein. So, what point are you trying to make?