![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peristaltorOne of the most underrated Heinlein novels, Podkayne of Mars, had a brief interaction with a character that perfectly described the role of politicians. They talk and talk, yes, but that's their job: when people stop talking to each other, they start shooting.
That italicized proviso proves critical. People who agree with each other talk to each other all the time. When they stop talking to people with whom they have disagreements and divergence in philosophies and world views, the character notes, things turn ugly.
This has happened. Hate speech is rampant. Outright falsehoods are spewed as fact. I'm sorry, folks, but if what you fervently believe is demonstrably incorrect, you fail, and get to be quiet for a while. Ridicule should be reserved for people who act in ways unsupported by reality.
Ridicule. Humor. Not the language of eliminationism, as Dave Neiwert points out
And I emphasized it for a reason: I personally suspect that this rhetoric is deliberate, and that this Arizona shooting is the intended result. The rhetoric is simply too stark to be mistaken for anything but a call to action:
An actual Palin web graphic, since removed.
Note the fourth target name in the left column.
You can see other examples here.
The hate speakers can distance themselves from these incidents all they want, but it won't wash for me. Whoever shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater is responsible for those trampled near the exits.
That italicized proviso proves critical. People who agree with each other talk to each other all the time. When they stop talking to people with whom they have disagreements and divergence in philosophies and world views, the character notes, things turn ugly.
This has happened. Hate speech is rampant. Outright falsehoods are spewed as fact. I'm sorry, folks, but if what you fervently believe is demonstrably incorrect, you fail, and get to be quiet for a while. Ridicule should be reserved for people who act in ways unsupported by reality.
Ridicule. Humor. Not the language of eliminationism, as Dave Neiwert points out
The critical components that distinguish irresponsible free speech from responsible are interworking pieces: whether it is intended to harm by scapegoating or demonizing, and whether or not it is provably false. . . .
This is true of so much far-right wingnuttery -- the "Birther" conspiracy theories, the FEMA-camp claims, the "constitutionalist" theories about taxation and the Federal Reserve, to list just a few examples -- and yet people believe them anyway.
This rhetoric also acts as a kind of wedge between the people who absorb it and the real world. There is always a kind of cognitive dissonance that arises from believing things that are provably untrue, and people who begin to fanatically cling to beliefs that do not comport with reality find themselves increasingly willing to buy into other similarly unhinged beliefs. For those who are already unhinged, the effects are particularly toxic.
(I emphasized that bit.)
And I emphasized it for a reason: I personally suspect that this rhetoric is deliberate, and that this Arizona shooting is the intended result. The rhetoric is simply too stark to be mistaken for anything but a call to action:
An actual Palin web graphic, since removed.
Note the fourth target name in the left column.
You can see other examples here.
The hate speakers can distance themselves from these incidents all they want, but it won't wash for me. Whoever shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater is responsible for those trampled near the exits.