Craziness all right.... Dem defends their target symbols

[bemused_leftist]

A person known to be mentally disturbed easily buys a gun that shoots 31 bullets -- and what is everyone talking about? Chain store logos vs viewfinder marks.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-tim-pawlenty-2012-presidential-race-/1
“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for example, used red bull’s eyes on a map to show the GOP candidates in its sights. Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the DCCC, told the Palm Beach Post over the weekend that the Democratic map was not threatening since it used an image that is also associated with Target, the national retail chain.”

Comments

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

The lengths to which people are going in order to insist that when *their* side uses targeting imagery, it doesn't mean anything and is not threatening in the slightest, is intensely amusing and a bit scary.

In your own journal, the insistence that "that map didn't have a target over ARIZONA" is so shrilly insistent that it calls attention to its own mediocrity as an argument, and it of course begs the question of how (not whether, but HOW) the dodge would have come had it been a politician in a state that *was* targeted by the DNC map.

That said--the RNC has routinely been pushing the rhetoric to new levels. Of course warlike imagery and rhetoric is used in politics--they're called "campaigns" because the push to power used to be by means of military, not political, campaigns--but somewhere, I think, the RNC has gone beyond the use of generalized and common imagery to direct threats and incitements to violence.

Which is, of course, protected under the First Amendment, at least to the level where it's currently stayed. Still, I find it difficult to believe that a Democratic leader could call for "second amendment solutions" without being severely scolded, toned down, and possibly ostracized.

Having said that,

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

In your own journal, the insistence that "that map didn't have a target over ARIZONA" is so shrilly insistent that it calls attention to its own mediocrity as an argument

Yes, that comment was sort of boggling.

As for "second amendment solutions", if all this heat (another violent metaphor) were being directed at Engels or Coulter or Beck or Limbaugh, I wouldn't much care (except that it's a distraction from the important issue, ie gun control).

I'm not sure Palin deserves to be such a, er, target, though. I've never seen her quoted with anything as possibly-serious as "second amendment solutions" (which I might accept as a metaphor, but it's a metaphor at a whole different level, imo).

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

You don't think that "don't retreat, RELOAD" is a comment along the same lines as 2nd amendment solutions?

I'm not sure, myself.

But I gotta say that this (http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html) is enough to make me disgusted. This is a clear editorial choice.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Looks like that particular troll post got overlooked (or maybe other trolls are reposting it). Must be millions of troll posts coming in to deal with.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Why do you assume it was a troll post, rather than a legitimate opinion? It's an idiot opinion, from my point of view, but it's one that many of my neighbors legitimately hold.

Why do you assign it the status of "troll"?

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Walks, quacks. Therefore treat like.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

No, no.

I don't know where you live (except that I don't believe it's Tehran, and never have; I don't know what your LJ information is supposed to convey except "I don't tell the truth"; for one thing, your IP address is out of Washington DC) but I'm pretty sure it's not in any conservative part of America.

Dude. When I said that my neighbors hold those opinions, I meant it. They're not unintelligent people, but many of them believe that I, and people like me, *are the enemy*. When they say things like this, they're not trolling; they're expressing legitimate doubts.

They're scared.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

It's a trollish, offensive comment, which I'm sure the staff will delete when they can. I'm surprised their server is even still up, with all the flak they must be getting. Oops, another military term.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

*shrug* They were deleting (what they considered to be) trollish, offensive comments just before and just after that.

This is one that just didn't get deleted.

If a comment comes out that says "hey, we're trying our best, but we're overwhelmed, and we're sorry about missing comments X, Y, and Z" then I'll take it at face value.

In the meantime, given that this comment came in at a time when trollish, offensive comments were being quickly removed, there just isn't a reason to believe that this one was left up merely by accident.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Iirc, the comment didn't have the usual markers that anti-troll or anti-spam software would look for (such as all caps, !!! etc, insulting words, etc). So it would take a later pass with careful reading to catch it, and they're probably overwhelmed already.

Imo it's ridiculous to think that it was deliberately left up in an editorial decision. At what level would that decision be made, and with what motive?

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

These decisions weren't being made by anti-troll or anti-spam software. Stop this BS argument, OK, unless you're really prepared to explain how "Peace and Justice? That's a new concept for you isn't it?" got deleted by anti-spam software.

And whatever argument you're making, please STFU; because the software you're talking about deletes things before, not after, they get placed on a website.

The fact that these comments went live and then got deleted says irrevocably that there were *people* making each, individual, decision, and that people get to bear the brunt of those decisions.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

As to 'don't retreat, reload' -- imo it's obviously the lightest metaphorical kind.

Google's first search page shows it as early as March 2010. One rather hysterical site says it appears in GOING ROGUE as a quote from her father. I'm not arsed, er, I'm too lazy to use Google's 'custom' date feature to see how long ago it was first noted.

That site also has this, which still sounds pretty metaphorical to me.
2010 Candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada stated during her campaign for U.S. Congress that:
you know, our founding fathers, they put that second amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. and in fact thomas jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
i hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those second amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? i’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out.”

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

"I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out."

Yep. If I were married to Harry Reid I would be totally comforted by the idea that this was clearly a metaphor. No worries here.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Obviously she meant vote him out of office, since she herself was running against him. At worst, vote him out before somebody else shoots him.

However on the metaphor in general. Occasional assassinations may succeed. But there's no way any sort of organized march on Washington by peasants carrying muskets (or even semi-automatic guns with 31 bullet clips) could succeed on a large scale. So the 'revolution' idea has to be a metaphor.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

But there's no way any sort of organized march on Washington by peasants carrying muskets (or even semi-automatic guns with 31 bullet clips) could succeed on a large scale. So the 'revolution' idea has to be a metaphor.

Oh, right, I'm so sorry, because the idea is stupid and can't succeed, therefore OBVIOUSLY no one meant it seriously and it HAS to be a metaphor.

Duh.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

WEll, that passage doesn't sound like Angle was suggesting marching with muskets.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

No, it really sounds like she was suggesting an armed revolution.

Nobody's suggested "marching with muskets" for over 100 years.

But being "armed and dangerous"? *That* is something that has legitimately American precedents.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

I've been following these posts, and it has made me think about things.

Violence in America is complex and pervasive throughout our history and while I think the paranoid style in American right wing politics is toxic, dangerous, unethical and overused - but the idea casuality is subject to interpretation and agendas.

The gun this guy used, however, was heavily regulated for at least a decade until the legislation lapsed. Not that he might not have used another, but it seems like there's some concrete harm reduction to be had there.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Apparently there was a background check required for purchasing the gun and Loughner passed it, because the incidents that would have disqualified him were not properly handled/reported.

See
http://bemused-leftist.livejournal.com/86158.html