Dog-whistle politics

P

Placebo

Guest
#1
The guy that shot that congresswoman in Arizona seems to be part of a new breed of extremist thugs who get "coded" messages directly from the opinion makers of the day. Said opinion makers (most of whom reside in that wilderness called FoxNews and rightwing talk airwaves) get paid millions of dollars to peddle hate while preaching love.

They talk about "taking our country back." From whom is not exactly clear unless they are refering to the Muslim alien guy in the Whitehouse who is hellbent on making the U.S a province of Saudi Arabia.

They talk about "we are the real Americans" and somehow claim with a straight face that they have a monopoly on religion and family values.

While nobody can say for sure why that guy opened fire, me would not be surprised at all if somebody else out there is at this very moment planing something on an even bigger scale just to send a message that, yes, only they can hear that dog-whistle. Happens on both sides of the aisle but the rightwing is much more adept at it.

So -dare I say- was Hitler.

You start out in 1954 by saying," Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like force busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Republican strategist Lee Atwater in 1981.
 
#2
some people hear what they wish David Berkowitz thought his neighbours dog commanded him to kill

was the dog evil? did the dog have an aggenda? not really it licked it bollocks and that was about it

if i say to you "they need ****ing slapping" who is they, its upto the person to decide and in a case where theres possible underlieing mental illness "they" go from being the gobby local kids to the people in charge

remember the last political Assassination attempt was done largly to impress a young actress (jodie foster whom i beilive was 13 )
 
P

Placebo

Guest
#3
I agree Mr Random and that is why I find this dog-whistle thing so fascinating. When you have a someone who is on the edge of the cliif, all you need is for him/her to believe that he/she is hearing this special message from the people he likes and admires so much. After that it is not so hard to jump into the abyss and take as many of the "enemy" as possible.

Is this going to change? Of course not. Why? Because inciting people overtly or covertly works all the time.
 
#5
Blaming Sarah Palin for Arizona is wrong

Der Spiegel said:
01/10/2011


America's Misguided Debate

Blaming Sarah Palin for Arizona Shooting Is Wrong

A Commentary by Marc Hujer

Photo Gallery: 14 Photos

AFP


Following this weekend's tragic shooting, many on the left in the United States are calling for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to be called to account for their alleged culpability in the killings. But these claims are spurious and could do more to help the left's political detractors than harm them.
Saturday's assassination attempt on Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is a tragedy, but this tragedy could also present an opportunity in American politics -- a chance to return to a more civil political debate and finally overcome the divisions that have characterized the country since the presidency of George W. Bush. But only hours after the assassination attempt on the Congresswomen, which left six people dead and 14 injured, the debate showed signs of derailing.


Of all people, it is precisely those who have complained the loudest about the culture of debate -- about the rhetoric of the Tea Party, the right wing's harsh words and the baseless Obama-Hitler comparisons -- who are now poisoning the debate with their own baseless insinuations. With little reliance on facts, they began searching for scapegoats for the attack and they found them, selectively, among the right wing, the Tea Party, Republican Party boss Michael Steele and Tea Party heroine Sarah Palin. The accusations being lodged are grave. "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin," leftist blogger Markos Moulitsas sneered after the bloodbath. Meanwhile, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann called for Palin to be ousted from the Republican Party if she didn't repudiate her role in "amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics." In his column in the New York Times, Paul Krugman sought to link the "toxic rhetoric" coming from right-wing preachers of hate with the assassination attempt. And former member of Congress Chris Carney said Palin should "say she was wrong."

A Year of Political Hatred and Defamation
There is no doubt that 2010 was a bad year for the United States, a year of political hatred and defamation. A year in which it became fashionable to dispute President Obama's American citizenship and to issue threats against members of Congress who voted in favor of sweeping health care reforms. But have Palin and Co., with their words, truly paved the way for a crime like this to be committed? Did 22-year-old suspect Jared Lee Loughner really shoot because Sarah Palin marked crosshairs on a map of electoral districts on her blog where Democrats were facing re-election, including that of Giffords? Did he murder because Palin's Facebook page includes her infamous line: "Do not retreat! Instead - reload"?

The language used by Palin and a few Tea Party supporters is doubtlessly raw and inappropriate, but there is in no way any proof whatsoever that they inspired the crime committed this weekend in Arizona. What little is known about the perpetrator does not suggest that he was a supporter of the Tea Party or an admirer of Palin's -- he doesn't even appear to have any clear political convictions. His favorite books include the "Communist Manifesto," Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and "Peter Pan," an erratic hodge podge. So far, there is no evidence that there were any political motives behind the crime.


Indeed, the massive criticism of Sarah Palin is misguided. This is not only due to the fact that the accusation is baseless, but also because the calculated attempt to weaken Palin in this manner could ultimately backfire. The reasoning is quite simple: Palin has always profited in the role of victim -- a victim of the liberal elite. Time and again, she has been made fun of -- when, for example, she spoke for the first time about foreign policy during the 2008 presidential campaign, and later when she wrote notes on her hand during speeches and television appearances. But every time people made fun of the Alaska politician or attacked her as being superficial and unqualified, it merely helped deepen the support of her followers. Now, the allegation that she carries partial responsibility for what has happened in Arizona could turn out to do more to help than harm her.

Yet again, she could emerge as a political martyr
 
P

Placebo

Guest
#6
rockape34's assertion:

America's Misguided Debate
Blaming Sarah Palin for Arizona Shooting Is Wrong


AndYet again, she could emerge as a political martyr.
If Palin emerges as a martyr in this incident then my faith in human beings would be greatly shaken. Mr Random theorized that these loons who listen to voices in their heads should not look to others for sympathy. This in my opinion is wrong and is also a gross oversimplication of the issue.

People who go on deadly rampages are not normal. They are by the nature of their deeds abnormal. I don't personally know anyone who would pick up a gun and fire into a crowd of strangers. The people who do are sick to begin with and should be treated as such: sick.

Am I naive? Maybe.

Only problem: by the time "normal" people get the balls to act against this sickness, it is invariably almost too late. It is (IMHO) like finding out you have lung cancer. By the time you do, it is almost always too late.

'Tis the price we pay for living in a democracy.

But to deliberately push them, to urge them to reload, to characterize them as warriors in some sort of noble struggle is just wrong. No inch given, no mile taken as I say this.

There is nothing wrong with loudly expressing your opinion. Sometimes it is necessary. What is wrong is taking or trying to take advantage of the crazy people out there for your own personal political gain, especially when it involves permanently negating the right to life of others. It might work in some stupid third world dictatorship but it has absolutely no space in the civilized and developed societies that we are all so proud to live in.
 
#7
... not an assertion of mine, just a differing view published by Der Spiegel. As on this side of the pond, members of the main parties should engage brain before opening mouth, idiots are ubiquitous.

As to being naïf - if you believe politicians ... ^_~
 
#8
rockape34's assertion:

If Palin emerges as a martyr in this incident then my faith in human beings would be greatly shaken. Mr Random theorized that these loons who listen to voices in their heads should not look to others for sympathy. This in my opinion is wrong and is also a gross oversimplication of the issue.
can you show me were i said that??

I didn't as someone who spent years looking after someone with severe mental illness i feel it is a serious issue which needs help and understanding

the point i was making is if dave hears voices of say obama telling them to rape next doors dog, its not obamas fault if dave lubes up and goes looking for sparky
 
#9
The 24/7 torrent of hate and bile being spilled out against Pres Obama and the left on Fox News would make Der Stürmer look like a liberal minded read and Julius Streicher an fair minded and balanced reporter - and FNC is not even on the extreme right of US politics. You tell the loons enough that somebody is the 'enemy' and eventually people start to believe it.
 
#10
The 24/7 torrent of hate and bile being spilled out against Pres Bush, Palin etc. and the Right on MSNBC would make Der Stürmer look like a liberal minded read and Julius Streicher an fair minded and balanced reporter - and MSNBC is not even on the extreme left of US politics. You tell the loons enough that somebody is the 'enemy' and eventually people start to believe it.
Fixed that for you. Funny how 8+ years of "Chimpy McBushHitler", assassination/rape fantasies etc has disappeared down the rabbit hole as if it never happened...

 
#11
The increasing polarisation in the US is pretty scary. The amount of fear-mongering that goes on in both the 'left' and 'right' is incredible. Makes the Labour-Conservative bitch fest look incredibly tame.

I think it will be the USA's downfall one day.
 
#13
Fixed that for you. Funny how 8+ years of "Chimpy McBushHitler", assassination/rape fantasies etc has disappeared down the rabbit hole as if it never happened...

I see you're still flogging that same picture around, Stoaty. It's Day 4 now, surely the Right has found more examples of "leftists" inciting violence? have you found that picture of a Code Pink protester with a carbine slung across her back? No? Never mind. Keep looking.

Meanwhile This is what's been on Glenn Beck's Website since the shooting:


Here's a highway billboard- from the Fox News Radio affiliate in Tucson- near the exit to the street where the supermarket was located

 
#15
#16
rockape34's assertion:



If Palin emerges as a martyr in this incident then my faith in human beings would be greatly shaken. Mr Random theorized that these loons who listen to voices in their heads should not look to others for sympathy. This in my opinion is wrong and is also a gross oversimplication of the issue.

People who go on deadly rampages are not normal. They are by the nature of their deeds abnormal. I don't personally know anyone who would pick up a gun and fire into a crowd of strangers. The people who do are sick to begin with and should be treated as such: sick.

Am I naive? Maybe.

Only problem: by the time "normal" people get the balls to act against this sickness, it is invariably almost too late. It is (IMHO) like finding out you have lung cancer. By the time you do, it is almost always too late.

'Tis the price we pay for living in a democracy.

But to deliberately push them, to urge them to reload, to characterize them as warriors in some sort of noble struggle is just wrong. No inch given, no mile taken as I say this.

There is nothing wrong with loudly expressing your opinion. Sometimes it is necessary. What is wrong is taking or trying to take advantage of the crazy people out there for your own personal political gain, especially when it involves permanently negating the right to life of others. It might work in some stupid third world dictatorship but it has absolutely no space in the civilized and developed societies that we are all so proud to live in.
You have faith in human beings?! I'll have some of what your smoking, mate.
 
#17
You have faith in human beings?! I'll have some of what your smoking, mate.
I take it this is aimed at Placebo as your quote was not my assertion as it would seem from your post, rather it was Placebo's comment on the article
/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Der Spiegel
01/10/2011

America's Misguided Debate

Blaming Sarah Palin for Arizona Shooting Is Wrong
 

Latest Threads

New Posts