Politically motivated violence thread

[EMDX6043]

[video=youtube_share;LQiOA7euaYA]https://youtu.be/LQiOA7euaYA[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

The MSM has cultivated for a long time a culture of rudeness. It draws eyeballs to TVs and clicks to webpages. Snark and spittle drive ratings, in the absence of blood.

More recently, that has also been reflected, refracted and amplified by Trump. Thinking about it a bit more, the MSM probably paved the way for a ratings whore like him.

Regardless, that dynamic has given normal people the permission to be rude to others. Sure, there's always been a cohort of rude people who don't mind taking swipes at public figures. But, it sure feels like that has grown and become more intense in the last few years.

It also seems like in this viral world, people are less and less likely to respect traditional interpersonal boundaries. Maybe that's a function of the lack of respect that MSM pays to those boundaries, or maybe its the social media effect. I don't know. I just believe there has been an erosion of those boundaries.

To Kut's point, as gun owners, I think we try to prepare for the worst case scenario. Generally, that's just how we think. Not everyone thinks like that. As a parent to daughters, that same conversation occurs in relation to walking alone at night, making sure you keep your cup in your hand at parties, and being aware of your surroundings to avoid a dangerous situation.

For public figures, that becomes even more important.

Should people be able to go wherever they want and enjoy a peaceful meal? Sure. But that isn't today's world. There are risks to not being in the right tribe. More risks now than earlier in my lifetime.

Can't blame Carlson for what happened to the daughter. D-bag who called her out is responsible for that. I think we all need to accept that this is more likely to happen in the future, to really any of us for any reason.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Someone was on Joe Rogan recently, can't remember which exactly, but they were talking about the "news".

In another country, they have a news station that reports the 20-30 minutes of news (because, let's be honest, that's all there is in a day)... and just repeats it. It's purely informational, how it should be.

Then they compare it to our US news stations... Fox, MSNBC, CNN... where they give you that 20-30 minutes of news, then they go on for 23 more hours telling you how to feel about it, how the "other side" is reacting to it, and bring on talking heads to hype it up. It's not news, it's all commentary and agenda.

I can understand how some people in the country would look at these anchors, then, and see them as some sort of figurehead or face of a group of people. A celebrity, not a news reporter. They don't want to debate their ideas (this shouldn't even be the case for a news reporter), they just want to intimidate them into shutting up.

A single event in the country can be covered by these outlets in so many different ways that it stops being the same event, and becomes two separate occurrences that two opposing sides see it differently.

It sucks. It's cancer. It really is harmful to how we all treat and think of each other. I don't see any end to it, though. It's all about the clicks, the views, the revenue, and the agenda. It's not about the news, and it hasn't been about the news for a long time.

 

[KLB]

The MSM has cultivated for a long time a culture of rudeness. It draws eyeballs to TVs and clicks to webpages. Snark and spittle drive ratings, in the absence of blood.

More recently, that has also been reflected, refracted and amplified by Trump. Thinking about it a bit more, the MSM probably paved the way for a ratings whore like him.

Regardless, that dynamic has given normal people the permission to be rude to others. Sure, there's always been a cohort of rude people who don't mind taking swipes at public figures. But, it sure feels like that has grown and become more intense in the last few years.

It also seems like in this viral world, people are less and less likely to respect traditional interpersonal boundaries. Maybe that's a function of the lack of respect that MSM pays to those boundaries, or maybe its the social media effect. I don't know. I just believe there has been an erosion of those boundaries.

To Kut's point, as gun owners, I think we try to prepare for the worst case scenario. Generally, that's just how we think. Not everyone thinks like that. As a parent to daughters, that same conversation occurs in relation to walking alone at night, making sure you keep your cup in your hand at parties, and being aware of your surroundings to avoid a dangerous situation.

For public figures, that becomes even more important.

Should people be able to go wherever they want and enjoy a peaceful meal? Sure. But that isn't today's world. There are risks to not being in the right tribe. More risks now than earlier in my lifetime.

Can't blame Carlson for what happened to the daughter. D-bag who called her out is responsible for that. I think we all need to accept that this is more likely to happen in the future, to really any of us for any reason.

I wonder if it is worse, or do we just hear about it more. Just like anything these days, there are so many media outlets that need to fill space that we get to hear about all kinds of stuff we never would have before.

 

[T.Lex]

In another country, they have a news station that reports the 20-30 minutes of news (because, let's be honest, that's all there is in a day)... and just repeats it. It's purely informational, how it should be.

Wait.

You don't remember CNN Headline News? That's exactly what it was.

 

[KLB]

CNN was pretty close to that in the beginning.

 

[Doug]

Progressives are NEVER responsible for the attacks they make on Conservatives.
The Conservatives force them to make the attacks by not agreeing that the Progressives are correct.
Conservatives are considered responsible for the attacks progressives make against them.

In the mindset of the left, the urge to attack Conservatives and their families is caused by the above.
The attacks are justified by the belief that, since the Conservatives are not Progressives, they must be either stupid or evil, or both. No matter which one they are, they are sub-human and not worthy of the respect and consideration normally given to people.
"Deplorables" is just another name for "stupid, evil, sub-human scum."
By the Progressive line of thought, Carlson is not only responsible for every bad thing that happens to him and his family, he and his family deserve to be treated this way.

 

[Leadeye]

I dismiss all of these problems at my house with a click of a switch. The creepy, rude, media monster is on the other side of a screen and that's where it stays.

 

[Denny347]

It seems you’re saying a public figure is “fair game”. How far does this extend? To family members? To close friends? To the “public figure” in his/her residence? To family members in the “public figures” residence? Do the protestors ever bear personal responsibility?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where in ANY of that did I suggest that they are fair game? How does acknowledgement of a reality equal me supporting their actions? It doesn't. Gun example to illustrate my point: As gun owners, we hear MANY news reports of guns being stolen out of vehicles while parked and left unattended. We balk at the notion that guns are left in vehicles (many even unlocked) and admonish anyone who leaves their guns in their cars. Are we blaming the gun owner for the theft? Of course not. We should be able to leave whatever we want in our unlocked vehicles without fear that our property will stolen. However, reality is that we cannot do that as the world is full of thieves. The thief is still responsible for the theft, breaking the law. This is similar. ANYONE should be able to go out in public with their families without protesters interrupting their evening. The protesters are a**hats for doing it. However, the public figure needs to understand that situation is a possibility in our current political reality and plan accordingly. What we'd LIKE reality to be doesn't change what reality actually IS.

 

[T.Lex]

The attacks are justified by the belief that, since the ___________________ are not __________________, they must be either stupid or evil, or both. No matter which one they are, they are sub-human and not worthy of the respect and consideration normally given to people.

That fill-in-the-blank mentality is popular.

 

[churchmouse]

Wait.

You don't remember CNN Headline News? That's exactly what it was.

Yes I remember.

Then this became a revenue stream of epic proportions. Then it was seen as a way to manipulate the :sheeple:. Now it is a driving force to change the very fabric of the nation.

 

[Birds Away]

CNN was pretty close to that in the beginning.

Back when they were a news organization.

 

[Doug]

That fill-in-the-blank mentality is popular.

These people are simply doing to non-Progressives that which Maxine Waters urged all Democrats do to Trump administration members. Hiliary proclaiming that you can't be civil with the opposition until you are back in power adds to the justification.
I don't recall any Republican politician telling their followers to make it impossible for Democrats to go out in public.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Back when they were a news organization.

I was just a lad back then, but I thought they were the gold standard news source during Desert Shield/Storm.

 

[Birds Away]

I was just a lad back then, but I thought they were the gold standard news source during Desert Shield/Storm.

Most definitely.

 

[T.Lex]

These people are simply doing to non-Progressives that which Maxine Waters urged all Democrats do to Trump administration members. Hiliary proclaiming that you can't be civil with the opposition until you are back in power adds to the justification.
I don't recall any Republican politician telling their followers to make it impossible for Democrats to go out in public.

Then I'm curious what you think "enemy of the people" means.

 

[Hawkeye]

Where in ANY of that did I suggest that they are fair game? How does acknowledgement of a reality equal me supporting their actions? It doesn't. Gun example to illustrate my point: As gun owners, we hear MANY news reports of guns being stolen out of vehicles while parked and left unattended. We balk at the notion that guns are left in vehicles (many even unlocked) and admonish anyone who leaves their guns in their cars. Are we blaming the gun owner for the theft? Of course not. We should be able to leave whatever we want in our unlocked vehicles without fear that our property will stolen. However, reality is that we cannot do that as the world is full of thieves. The thief is still responsible for the theft, breaking the law. This is similar. ANYONE should be able to go out in public with their families without protesters interrupting their evening. The protesters are a**hats for doing it. However, the public figure needs to understand that situation is a possibility in our current political reality and plan accordingly. What we'd LIKE reality to be doesn't change what reality actually IS.

Thanks for clarifying your position somewhat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KittySlayer]

It also seems like in this viral world, people are less and less likely to respect traditional interpersonal boundaries. Maybe that's a function of the lack of respect that MSM pays to those boundaries, or maybe its the social media effect. I don't know. I just believe there has been an erosion of those boundaries.

I think you are right, it is driven by social media. The keyboard warriors have been emboldened and their comments online have no consequences. After years of being able to insult and degrade people online they have let their IRL (in real life) persona be influenced by their online behavior and are finding they face few consequences when they act like an idiot IRL. In fact, their peers and the media cheer them on, reinforcing the inappropriate behavior.

Can't blame Carlson for what happened to the daughter. D-bag who called her out is responsible for that. I think we all need to accept that this is more likely to happen in the future, to really any of us for any reason.

Wish she could have kicked him in the nuts. Sadly she would face more consequences than he did for his inappropriate action. Besides, they are probably safely stored in his [STRIKE]wife's[/STRIKE] husband's purse.

Wonder if the Country Club will revoke his membership for inappropriate behavior.

 

[printcraft]

Then I'm curious what you think "enemy of the people" means.

Someone that doesn’t have your best interests at heart. Someone that will lie and take advantage of you for their own goals.

 

[mmpsteve]

I dismiss all of these problems at my house with a click of a switch. The creepy, rude, media monster is on the other side of a screen and that's where it stays.

That doesn't change the fact that people are being accosted in the streets; confronted in restaurants, etc ... merely for their ideas. Things are changing, for a miriad of reasons, and we all have to adapt, especially if you're a famous person.

.